[Alpha Biz= Paul Lee] Toss, which is currently engaged in a patent infringement lawsuit with Korea Information & Communications Co. (KICC), has stated that it is willing to pay royalties to KICC if a court determines that Toss has infringed KICC’s patents. KICC claims that Toss has unlawfully used its patented technologies.
Such a stance is considered unusual in patent litigation, where defendants typically argue that no infringement has occurred rather than indicating a willingness to pay royalties.
According to a report by ChosunBiz on the 29th, Toss wrote in a preparatory brief submitted to the Seoul Central District Court that “if the creditor’s (KICC’s) patents are found to be valid and are enforceable under the court’s judgment, Toss is willing to pay reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties.”
In October last year, KICC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the Seoul Central District Court, seeking to halt the production and sale of Toss’s payment devices. KICC alleges that Toss’s devices copied the designs of two of its patented technologies—an electrostatic discharge prevention device and a card information encryption device.
In preliminary injunction proceedings, courts primarily examine whether the respondent’s actions cause damage to the petitioner’s rights or property. Substantive determinations regarding patent infringement are generally made during the main trial, which follows the injunction phase.
For this reason, defendants in patent-related injunction cases usually state that the substantive issue of infringement should be addressed in the main lawsuit. However, instead of emphasizing a lack of infringement, Toss indicated that it would be willing to pay royalties if it ultimately loses the case.
A patent litigation attorney noted, “Expressing a willingness to pay royalties goes beyond the conventional phrase of ‘respecting the court’s decision.’ It suggests an alternative legal strategy, likely in anticipation of the possibility of an unfavorable ruling on infringement.” According to the report, Toss’s preparatory brief did not include arguments directly disputing patent infringement.
During two hearings held so far, Toss has reportedly refrained from asserting that no infringement occurred, instead focusing on claims that the patents themselves are invalid. Toss has argued that the technologies KICC claims as patented are technologies that any developer with ordinary technical skill could implement, and that the dispute should center on patent validity rather than infringement.
On the 16th, Toss filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board seeking invalidation of KICC’s patents.
Alphabiz Reporter Paul Lee(hoondork1977@alphabiz.co.kr)
