The petitioners were registered as patent attorneys based on their attorney licenses but did not join the association. In November 2018, the association disciplined them for violating the membership requirement. The petitioners then filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the disciplinary action and also filed a constitutional complaint challenging Article 11 of the Patent Attorney Act, which mandates membership for registered patent attorneys.
Jipyeong, retained by the Korean Bar Association, submitted multiple opinions arguing the mandatory membership system was unconstitutional and sought to persuade the court. The constitutional complaint was filed in January 2020, and after more than six years of dispute with the association, the court issued the constitutional nonconformity decision, the firm said.
The Constitutional Court found that the current association engages in activities representing the interests of patent attorneys who are not lawyers, and that forcing lawyer-patent attorneys to join infringes their freedom of association and freedom of occupation. The court also accepted the argument that a less restrictive alternative exists: allowing lawyer-patent attorneys to form a separate patent attorney group and requiring membership there.
Jipyeong said it has previously won a series of constitutional rulings in high-impact cases, including challenges involving multiple provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the Court Organization Act, and Civil Act provisions on statutes of limitations and lease terms.
Park Seong-cheol, an attorney who heads Jipyeong’s Constitutional Petition Center and led the case, said, “Although there were two prior rulings upholding the same provision, it was effective that we did not give up and persuaded the Constitutional Court with reasoning that went beyond the limits of the earlier decisions.” He said the team aimed to present specific grounds showing the provision excessively restricts lawyer-patent attorneys’ freedom of association and freedom of occupation.
Park said changes in legislation could bring major shifts in how lawyers conduct patent attorney work, calling the decision one that will help companies and the public receive diverse and sufficient legal services.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.