Practical Training Education of Patent Attorney

Myung-Shin Kim, Adviser

The Korean Patent Attorneys Association

As information technology continues to advance and industries diversify, practical training for patent attorneys has become an essential requirement for obtaining qualification. The Patent Attorney Act was revised on July 28, 2016, to mandate the completion of practical training as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

However, a thorough review of the practical training system for patent attorneys revealed the absence of appropriate sanctions, despite the recurrence of unfaithful trainees during the education period. As such, I fully support the proposed amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Attorney Act to enhance the effectiveness of education and provide high-quality services to legal consumers.

In particular, I support the detailed provisions for disapproving inadequate practical training, restricting the qualifications of individuals who perform poorly, implementing “E-Learning” education, and establishing new regulations to evaluate the outcomes of collective education. However, in principle, practical training for patent attorneys should be conducted directly by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) through offline collective training sessions.

In the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as a natural disaster, the Commissioner of the KIPO could implement “E-Learning” education for a limited and exceptionally short period. Currently, individuals who pass the Patent Attorney’s Examination undergo offline group training at the International Intellectual Property Training Institute in Daejeon. However, even during this offline group training, unfaithful trainees have been observed. Under such circumstances, allowing a corporation, institution, or organization approved by the Commissioner of the KIPO to conduct only online training and still granting qualifications to patent attorneys would contradict the fundamental purpose of the qualification system established by the government.

The KIPO must be responsible for selecting instructors and textbooks for practical training and evaluating the degree of achievement during collective education. Since the qualification of a patent attorney must be based on demonstrable achievement in practical training, this approach aligns with the position of the Korean Bar Association, which also emphasizes achievement-based qualifications.

According to the Korean Bar Association, they argue that practical training under the Patent Attorney Act is not a requirement for qualification but rather a prerequisite for commencing business. However, the author of the 2016 revision to the Patent Attorney Act confirms that no such provision states that practical training is only a business requirement. While patent attorneys specialize in cases related to their respective technical fields after receiving offline practical training, allowing lawyers to qualify without completing offline education and practice in various technical fields is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if lawyers receive online practical training, they cannot deliver satisfactory services to clients without assistance from scientific and engineering staff.

Therefore, the system that allows lawyers to obtain patent attorney qualifications after completing a fixed period of practical training should now be abolished. Historically, when the number of patent attorneys was limited, it was an inevitable measure to allow lawyers to acquire such qualifications automatically. However, the number of patent attorneys has increased significantly. In this context, granting patent attorney qualifications to lawyers based solely on formal education primarily for income purposes would undoubtedly harm national competitiveness.

I passed the 8th patent attorney examination and underwent one year of training in the Patent Bureau. Following this, I attempted the practical test but failed to pass it, requiring me to retake it after another year of training. This experience demonstrates that formal practical training alone is not effective in preparing individuals to provide excellent service as patent attorneys.

For the first time in many years, the government has proposed an amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Attorney Act to improve the effectiveness of practical training. If so, I recommend further modifications to enhance this proposal and better serve legal consumers.