Introduction and Overview of Amendments  The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea enacted substantial amendments to the Trademark Act, which are set to come into effect on 22 July 2025. These legislative revisions are aimed at improving procedural efficiency within the trademark registration framework and enhancing enforcement mechanisms available to rights holders. The key amendments comprise a reduction in the statutory opposition period from 60 days to 30 days, and an increase in the upper limit of punitive damages awarded in cases involving willful infringement, raising the cap from three times to five times the actual damages suffered. These reforms are indicative of South Korea’s broader effort to align its intellectual property regime with the evolving needs of the global commercial landscape.   Key Amendments: Opposition Period and Strengthened Enforcement One of the principal amendments concerns the trademark opposition procedure. Under the revised provision, the opposition period has been curtailed from 60 days to 30 days following the publication of the application. This measure is intended to expedite the examination and registration process, thereby reducing unnecessary delays for applicants. However, it simultaneously imposes a more stringent deadline on third parties seeking to challenge applications on relative or absolute grounds. To accommodate legitimate concerns, the dual-stage opposition process has been retained. A preliminary notice of opposition may be filed within the 30-day period, followed by a supplementary statement of grounds. Foreign entities may be granted an extended timeline of up to 60 additional days to complete their submissions. The Act also preserves the mechanism for submitting pre-publication informational briefs, allowing interested parties to draw the attention of examiners to prior rights or relevant legal issues prior to publication. The second key revision pertains to remedies for trademark infringement. The amendment raises the statutory ceiling for punitive damages in instances of intentional infringement, increasing the multiplier from three times to five times the quantum of actual harm proven. This enhancement is designed to deter infringers engaging in deliberate acts of trademark misappropriation, such as counterfeiting or unauthorized commercial exploitation, and to provide stronger legal recourse for aggrieved proprietors. The increased liability reflects a legislative intent to impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions on bad-faith actors. Implications and Conclusion These amendments reflect the Republic of Korea’s continued commitment to strengthening its intellectual property infrastructure in line with global best practices. While the shortened opposition window will accelerate registration timelines, it also necessitates heightened vigilance among trademark owners, legal counsel, and businesses to ensure timely monitoring and enforcement of their rights. The revised enforcement regime, featuring more substantial punitive damages, is expected to act as a credible deterrent to willful infringement and bolster the overall efficacy of trademark protection. Businesses operating in or planning to enter the Korean market are advised to reassess their trademark portfolios, implement proactive monitoring systems, and ensure readiness to respond within the newly prescribed time limits. The amendments represent a significant evolution in South Korea’s trademark law, striking a balance between procedural efficiency and enhanced substantive protection for rights holders in a dynamic commercial environment.

Legislative Overview The Vietnam’s National Assembly has recently approved the Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law) during its 9th Session of the 15th Legislature. Scheduled to come into force on 1 January 2026, the DTI Law is Vietnam’s first comprehensive legal framework tailored to support and regulate the digital economy. It aims to strengthen local innovation capacity, promote high-tech manufacturing, and increase international competitiveness in digital fields. Incentives for High-Tech Enterprises The DTI Law introduces a wide range of benefits for enterprises involved in digital technology, particularly in the semiconductor and artificial intelligence sectors. Projects focused on research and development, chip design, manufacturing, packaging, and AI data center construction are eligible for: The law also encourages the development of shared infrastructure, regulatory sandbox programs, and talent pipelines, making it easier for both local and foreign businesses to invest and expand in Vietnam’s tech sector. Risk Based Regulation of Artificial Intelligence A key focus of the DTI Law is the development and ethical deployment of artificial intelligence. The legislation introduces a classification system for AI technologies based on risk level: high-risk, high-impact, and standard. Each category will carry specific compliance requirements. All AI systems must adhere to core principles of transparency, safety, accountability, and fairness, with additional controls for high-risk applications. This structure supports innovation while ensuring public trust and responsible use. Legal Recognition of Digital Assets In a significant legal advancement, digital assets are now formally recognized as a distinct class of property under Vietnamese law. The DTI Law outlines essential principles for the ownership, transfer, use, and protection of digital assets. Companies operating in this space must implement robust cybersecurity and anti-money laundering frameworks. Regulatory oversight will ensure compliance with national and international standards, including measures to prevent terrorism financing and other illicit activities. Strategic Implications for Businesses Vietnam’s DTI Law marks a pivotal moment in the country’s shift toward a digitally driven economy. It reflects a balanced approach that supports technological advancement while maintaining governance standards. The timely issuance of implementing guidelines in the coming months will be crucial for successful enforcement and industry adoption.

Introduction and Key Objectives Japan recently introduced a landmark piece of legislation known as the Act on the Promotion of Research and Development and the Utilisation of Technologies Related to Artificial Intelligence, commonly referred to as the Japan AI Act. This new law marks a significant step toward fostering AI innovation while ensuring ethical and human-centric development. Instead of taking a heavily regulated approach like the European Union’s AI Act, Japan has chosen to emphasize voluntary compliance, flexible guidelines, and government support. The primary goal is to encourage the growth of trustworthy AI technologies that align with democratic values, protect individual privacy, and reflect Japan’s commitment to global standards. Governance and Pro-Innovation Framework The Act introduces a collaborative governance model, placing the AI Strategy Headquarters under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. This body plays a central role in coordinating Japan’s national AI strategy and facilitating cooperation across ministries, industries, and research institutions. Importantly, the legislation encourages active involvement from businesses, civil society, and citizens, creating space for inclusive discussions about AI’s impact on society. Japan has clearly taken a pro-innovation stance, offering a supportive environment especially for startups and small to mid-sized enterprises to develop AI technologies without being weighed down by rigid regulations. This forward-thinking approach builds on Japan’s leadership in global AI discussions, including its role in the 2023 Hiroshima AI Process, which advocated for international principles of safety, trust, and transparency in the development of advanced AI. Global Alignment and Conclusion A key strength of the Japan AI Act lies in its alignment with global norms and its intent to ease international cooperation and trade. By focusing on regulatory flexibility and encouraging companies to adopt responsible practices voluntarily, the law helps Japanese businesses navigate international legal landscapes more smoothly. Ultimately, the Act showcases how countries can promote innovation in artificial intelligence while staying true to ethical standards. It offers a compelling example for other nations, demonstrating that thoughtful regulation can both safeguard society and support technological progress. With this legislation, Japan presents a vision of AI as a tool for public good which is rooted in inclusivity, transparency, and a strong global outlook.

Key Decision and Statutory Basis On April 18, 2025, the South Korean Tax Tribunal issued its decision in Case No. Josim 2025Jung0213, concluding that royalty payments made by a Korean entity to a United States-based company for the use of patents registered only in the United States, but used within Korean territory, qualify as Korean-source income. This ruling was made despite the absence of domestic registration for the patents involved. The Tribunal based its finding on Article 93(8) of the Corporate Income Tax Law (CITL), which provides that if foreign-registered intellectual property is utilized within Korea for production, distribution, or related business activities, the resulting income is to be considered as having a Korean source for taxation purposes. Departure from Previous Judicial Interpretations This administrative ruling differs from the position historically adopted by South Korean courts. In a decision issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 (Case No. 2018Du36592), the Court ruled that royalties paid for the use of patents not registered in Korea could not be treated as Korean-source income under the Korea–United States tax treaty. That judgment applied the territoriality principle in patent law and concluded that enforceable rights must exist within the country where protection is claimed. As a result, the Court held that royalties paid for unregistered patents did not fall within Korea’s taxing jurisdiction. Implications for Multinational Enterprises The Tribunal’s interpretation may indicate a broader administrative shift toward prioritizing the place of use over the place of registration when evaluating the source of income for tax purposes. This approach could increase the risk of tax exposure for foreign licensors whose patents are actively used within Korea but registered abroad. Entities engaged in cross-border licensing arrangements involving Korean licensees should assess whether the royalty income they receive may now be subject to Korean withholding tax. This decision may affect treaty-based tax planning and could prompt further scrutiny by the tax authorities. Given the contrast between the Tribunal’s position and the judicial precedent, future legal developments should be closely observed. Whether this administrative stance will be challenged in court or lead to further legislative or regulatory clarification remains uncertain. Other Recent Tax Developments in Korea Additional recent tax rulings and Tribunal decisions demonstrate evolving interpretations in various aspects of South Korean tax law:

Regulatory Directive and Procedural Context The Nanjing Intellectual Property Protection Center (NIPPC) issued a formal directive on the 4th of June 2025, strictly prohibiting the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of patent application materials submitted for regional pre-examination. This development directly affects applicants seeking accelerated review under China’s pre-examination mechanism, which enables patent filings to be initially assessed by designated regional authorities before potential fast-tracking at the national level by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The prohibition was prompted by findings that certain application documents submitted for review had been generated, in whole or in part, using AI-based systems. The Center emphasized that such practices compromise the authenticity and reliability of the patent system, which is predicated on verifiable research and bona fide technical contributions. Core Provisions of the Ban The directive sets out clear and binding obligations for applicants and their representatives: Sanctions for Non-Compliance The directive further outlines the repercussions for violations of the policy: Verification and Monitoring Protocols To enforce these requirements, the NIPPC will implement a multilayered verification regime. Measures will include the deployment of advanced content detection systems to assess the originality and authorship of submitted materials, expert technical evaluation panels to assess substantive credibility, and the right to demand clarification or additional documentation from applicants regarding key disclosures. This initiative underscores China’s evolving stance on the responsible use of AI in the intellectual property domain. By requiring patent documentation to reflect genuine human inventiveness and verifiable technical development, the NIPPC seeks to uphold the integrity and reliability of the country’s innovation ecosystem

Judicial Determination and Statutory Context The Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan rendered a seminal judgment in Case No. 2023 (Ne) 10040, marking the first judicial recognition of patent infringement arising from the performance of a medical procedure involving a patented composition. The dispute concerned Patent No. 5186050, which pertains to a breast augmentation formulation composed of autologous plasma, basic fibroblast growth factor (b-FGF), and a fat emulsion. The claimant alleged that this composition was utilized without license at a commercial aesthetic clinic operated by the respondent. Under Japanese patent jurisprudence, medical procedures are typically deemed non-industrial and thus excluded from patentable subject matter. However, the statutory framework, unlike certain foreign regimes such as that of the United States, does not afford a comprehensive exemption from infringement liability for acts conducted by medical professionals. Article 69, Paragraph 3 of Japan’s Patent Act carves out a limited exception solely for the preparation of medicines pursuant to individual prescriptions issued by physicians or dentists. There exists no statutory immunity for broader therapeutic or cosmetic interventions involving patented products. Reasoning and Key Findings of Japan IP Court The Grand Panel categorically rejected the respondent’s assertion that the act in question constituted a non-patentable medical activity. It held that the patented invention was a product-oriented formulation, distinct from a medical method, and therefore satisfied the criterion of industrial applicability. The Court further determined that the application of the composition was intended for aesthetic enhancement rather than therapeutic treatment, thereby falling outside the protective scope of Article 69(3). Critically, the ruling affirmed that the statutory exemption applies strictly to pharmaceutical preparations intended for diagnosis, treatment, or disease prevention, and not to compositions administered for cosmetic purposes. Consequently, the unauthorized use of the claimed invention in a commercial clinical setting amounted to an infringement of the patentee’s exclusive rights under Article 68 of the Patent Act. The decision also clarified that the professional status of the infringing party as a medical practitioner does not in itself absolve liability, particularly where the use involves a patented product and not a medical method per se. This interpretation establishes a firm boundary between legitimate medical exemptions and infringing commercial use of protected intellectual property. Implications and Strategic Considerations This decision constitutes a watershed moment in Japan’s patent enforcement landscape, particularly as it relates to the intersection of medical services and proprietary biotechnological innovations. It underscores the enforceability of product-based patent rights even within the context of clinical or aesthetic applications, except where narrowly tailored statutory exceptions apply. Stakeholders in the cosmetic surgery, regenerative medicine, and biotechnology sectors must now recalibrate their compliance frameworks to ensure adherence to patent laws. Due diligence, including freedom-to-operate analyses and pre-emptive licensing negotiations, will be indispensable for mitigating infringement risks. The judgment is poised to influence future adjudication involving the commercial deployment of patented compositions in clinical practice and reinforces the necessity for precise statutory interpretation in demarcating the limits of medical-use exemptions.

Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office has recently introduced a refined patent acceleration scheme known as SG Patents Fast, launched on 20 May 2025. This new scheme replaces the previous SG IP Fast pilot, which concluded at the end of 2024. The updated approach focuses not on speeding up the final grant, but rather on advancing specific milestones during the prosecution phase, offering inventors and businesses more control and predictability. SG Patents Fast Designed with Applicant Needs in Mind The SG Patents Fast was developed based on applicant feedback. It aims to improve efficiency by providing quicker turnaround times for examination without pushing for a complete fast-track grant. This type of flexibility ensures that patent applicants retain their options for future filings in other countries while benefiting from faster updates from IPOS. Unlike the earlier pilot programme, SG Patents Fast relaxes certain formalities: These changes make the process more accessible for a wider range of applicants, including startups and independent innovators. Two Acceleration Tracks Available The programme offers two clear pathways for applicants, depending on their timeline and budget: SG Patents Fast 4 SG Patents Fast 8 These fees are additional to the standard official charges associated with filing. Option to Accelerate Further Office Actions Applicants already enrolled in SG Patents Fast may also request faster responses to subsequent office actions. If no fee is paid at this stage, the application proceeds along the regular timeline. Who Can Apply To be eligible for SG Patents Fast: Monthly Cap Per Applicant Each applicant or corporate entity is allowed up to five acceleration requests per calendar month under SG Patents Fast 4 or Fast 8. However, there is no limit on the number of requests to expedite additional office actions. Bringing Predictability to the Patent Journey SG Patents Fast marks a practical shift in how patent prosecution is managed in Singapore. By targeting specific steps for acceleration and allowing greater procedural flexibility, the system is now better aligned with the evolving needs of the innovation community. This approach fosters a more responsive and applicant-friendly environment while maintaining Singapore’s reputation for strong and efficient IP protection.