Patent and utility model filing in Korea: what the OASIS matrix counts

Patent paperwork and visa-point paperwork answer different questions. KIPO decides whether an application has been filed and how the right proceeds. The OASIS operator decides how a documented IP status fits its D-8-4 point matrix. Keep those systems separate.

Patent and utility model are not interchangeable labels

KIPO’s English patent material describes a patent as a right for an invention and a utility model as a right for a device. The same material explains that Korea applies the first-to-file rule. The applicant who files first is the relevant applicant under that rule, not simply the person who says they invented first.

That is a legal distinction, not a recommendation about which route is better. The choice depends on the subject matter, filing strategy, prior-art position and professional advice. An OASIS point entry does not replace a KIPO classification decision.

KIPO’s filing record is the foundation

KIPO’s patent and utility-model pages list the core filing materials. They include an application identifying the inventor and applicant, a specification with a detailed description and claims, drawings where relevant, an abstract, and priority material when a priority right is claimed.

The filing must also meet formal requirements. KIPO states that an application without the required specification or relevant drawings, or an application submitted by someone without a Korean address or place of business who does not use a Korean agent, can be treated as though it had never been submitted. The exact return and correction rules belong to KIPO’s procedure.

For a foreign founder, representation and language are practical checks. KIPO’s utility-model guidance says an application must be written in Korean and that an applicant without a Korean address or place of business must use an agent in Korea. Confirm the current procedure before filing rather than relying on an English checklist from another jurisdiction.

The OASIS matrix counts status, not ambition

The Global Startup Immigration Center’s OASIS page gives the D-8-4 point matrix. It lists prerequisite items such as registered IP, co-inventor status, pending IP applications, government startup support and qualifying investment. The page states that at least one prerequisite item is required and that the overall threshold is 60 points, alongside the other requirements it prints.

The table is a reading guide to the operator’s matrix, not a KIPO fee schedule or a prediction that an application will register. A filing receipt can establish an application status. It does not establish a registered right.

Apply the caps before you total points

The OASIS page says overlapping registered, acquired, invented or applied-for IP points are allowed within a maximum of 60 points. It separately says IP applications are recognized up to 10 points regardless of the number of applications. The application cap is therefore not an invitation to multiply a single 10-point category by the number of filings.

Joint ownership also needs care. The operator page says points are divided equally among joint participants for jointly owned IP registration, invention or application. The document proving the relationship matters as much as the filing itself.

Read OASIS-3 as support, not a new right

The operator describes OASIS-3 as application support for patent, utility-model and design rights, with trademark excluded from that support description. That is a programme description. It does not change KIPO’s filing requirements or guarantee that an idea will receive a right.

The operator’s page also contains an internal source conflict: its worked 60-point example labels OASIS-4 as a three-day class, while the later OASIS-4 programme description says 20 hours over three weeks. Do not use the example to infer the current course schedule. Verify the operator’s current course notice.

Use the OASIS guide for the wider D-8-4 route, and confirm filing procedure with KIPO or a qualified Korean IP professional.