Brief summary
- Yes. Korea allows multiple dependent claims. A claim that refers to two or more claims must state the numbers of those claims in the alternative (Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act (특허법 시행령), Art. 5(5)).
- A multiple dependent claim must not refer to another multiple dependent claim (Art. 5(6)). The same applies when the reference is indirect, through a claim that refers to only one claim.
- There is no separate official fee for a multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim is counted as one claim when the fee for request for examination is calculated.
The provisions are those of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act in force from 1 October 2025. Last verified on 8 October 2026.
Last verified
Which forms of reference are allowed, at a glance
As of October 2026. “Multiple dependent claim” (다중종속항) corresponds to the wording of the Enforcement Decree, “a claim that refers to two or more claims”.
| Form of reference | Example | Treatment in Korea | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single reference | according to claim 1 | Allowed | Enforcement Decree, Art. 5(1) and 5(4) |
| Multiple reference in the alternative | according to claim 1 or claim 2 | Allowed | Enforcement Decree, Art. 5(5) |
| Multiple reference not in the alternative | according to claim 1, claim 2 | Violation of the claim drafting requirements | Enforcement Decree, Art. 5(5) |
| Multiple dependent claim referring directly to a multiple dependent claim | according to claim 2 or claim 3 (claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim) | Violation of the claim drafting requirements | Enforcement Decree, Art. 5(6), former part |
| Multiple dependent claim referring to a multiple dependent claim through a claim with a single reference | according to claim 2 or claim 4 (claim 4 refers only to claim 3, which is a multiple dependent claim) | Violation of the claim drafting requirements | Enforcement Decree, Art. 5(6), latter part |
| Claim with a single reference referring to a multiple dependent claim | according to claim 3 (claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim) | Allowed | Examination Guidelines, Part 2, Chapter 4, 6.6 |
A multiple dependent claim is allowed if the reference is in the alternative
The Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act allows a claim that refers to two or more claims. Article 5(5) requires such a claim to state the numbers of the claims referred to in the alternative. [1]
The Patent Examination Guidelines (특허·실용신안 심사기준) of the Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처, MOIP) give examples of wording that is accepted as alternative. The examples are “according to claim 1 or claim 2” and “according to any one of claims 1 to 3”. [3]
The same Guidelines also give examples of wording that is not alternative. These are “according to claim 1, claim 2” and “according to claim 1 and claim 2 or claim 3”. [3]
The same rule applies to utility model applications. The wording of Article 3(4) and 3(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Utility Model Act (실용신안법 시행령) is the same as that of Article 5(5) and 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act. [5]
A multiple dependent claim cannot refer to another multiple dependent claim
Korea does not allow a multiple dependent claim to refer to another multiple dependent claim. The basis is the former part of Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act. A claim that refers to two or more claims cannot refer to a claim that itself refers to two or more claims. [1]
An indirect reference is also prohibited. The latter part of Article 5(6) provides that the same applies when the claim referred to refers to only one claim, if that claim as a result refers to two or more claims. [1]
The Examination Guidelines explain the purpose of this provision. It is intended to avoid the difficulty of having to consult many other claims in order to interpret one claim. [3]
The Guidelines give the following example of a direct reference. Claim 4 violates Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree. [3]
| Claim | Reference | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | Independent claim | No problem |
| Claim 2 | according to claim 1 | No problem |
| Claim 3 | according to claim 1 or claim 2 | No problem (multiple dependent claim) |
| Claim 4 | according to claim 2 or claim 3 | Violation (a multiple dependent claim refers to claim 3, which is a multiple dependent claim) |
The Guidelines give the following example of an indirect reference. Claim 5 is in violation. [3]
| Claim | Reference | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Claim 3 | according to claim 1 or claim 2 | No problem (multiple dependent claim) |
| Claim 4 | according to claim 3 | No problem |
| Claim 5 | according to claim 2 or claim 4 | Violation (claim 4 refers to claim 3, which is a multiple dependent claim) |
| Claim 6 | according to claim 5 | No violation of Art. 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree |
Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree applies only to a claim that refers to two or more claims. The Guidelines state that claim 6 in the example above refers to only one claim and therefore does not violate this provision. [3]
Some claims are not treated as multiple references
The Examination Guidelines treat as an exception a claim that refers to two or more claims in order to state the invention clearly and concisely. The example is “a video signal transmission apparatus comprising the transmitter of claim 1 and the receiver of claim 2”. [3]
The Guidelines do not treat this claim as a violation of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree, even though the reference is not in the alternative. [3]
The Guidelines also do not treat it as a violation of Article 5(6) when another multiple dependent claim refers to a claim of that kind. The example in the Guidelines is “a medium on which a program that performs the method of claim 2 or claim 3 is recorded”. In this example, claim 3 is a method claim that draws on the device of claim 1. [3]
In contrast, a claim that contains two layers of reference within one claim can be a ground for rejection. The Guidelines give the form “the product of claim C or D manufactured by the method of claim A or B” as an example. The basis is Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree, which requires claims to be stated in a reasonable number. [1][3]
A violation is a ground for rejection but not a ground for invalidation
A claim that does not comply with Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree is a ground for rejection. Article 42(8) of the Patent Act (특허법) leaves the methods of stating the claims to Presidential Decree. Article 62, subparagraph 4 of the Patent Act provides that an application that does not meet the requirements of Article 42(8) is to be rejected. [2]
Before a decision of rejection (decision to reject a patent application), the examiner issues a notice of grounds for rejection and gives the applicant an opportunity to submit a written argument (Patent Act, Art. 63(1)). [2] The Guidelines state that, in the indirect reference example above, a ground for rejection for violation of Article 42(8) of the Patent Act is notified for claim 5. [3]
The applicant can correct the references by amendment. Under Article 47(1) of the Patent Act, the specification can be amended until a certified copy of the decision to grant is served. After a notice of grounds for rejection has been received, amendment is possible only at set times, such as the period for submission of a written argument. [2]
After registration, this violation alone does not make the patent invalid. Article 42(8) is not among the grounds for invalidation listed in the subparagraphs of Article 133(1) of the Patent Act. [2]
There is no separate official fee for a multiple dependent claim
Korea has no official fee that applies only to multiple dependent claims. The fee for request for examination is KRW 166,000 plus KRW 51,000 for each claim (Regulation on the Collection of Patent Fees, etc. (특허료 등의 징수규칙), “Fee Regulation”, Art. 2(1), subparagraph 7). [4]
The Examination Guidelines state that a claim that refers to two or more claims is also counted as one claim. Independent claims and dependent claims are not distinguished either. [3]
KRW 166,000 and KRW 51,000 are the amounts for applications filed on or after 1 August 2023. The fee for request for examination for applications filed before that date follows the previous provisions (Fee Regulation, Addenda No. 517, Art. 3(2)). [4]
Under the previous provisions, the fee for request for examination is KRW 143,000 plus KRW 44,000 for each claim. These are the amounts of Article 2(1), subparagraph 7 of the Fee Regulation in force from 4 February 2023. [4]
Example: splitting a multiple dependent claim increases the number of claims
A prohibited reference can be corrected by reducing the reference to one claim or by splitting the claim. Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree applies only to a claim that refers to two or more claims. [1] A claim that now refers to only one claim is outside this provision. [3] Splitting increases the number of claims, and an official fee is charged for each added claim.
The table shows claim 4 of the direct reference example above split into two claims. It assumes an application filed on or after 1 May 2024 and an applicant with no fee reduction.
| Item | Before correction | Reference reduced | Claim split |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 4 | according to claim 2 or claim 3 | according to claim 2 | according to claim 2 |
| Claim 5 | None | None | according to claim 3 |
| Number of claims | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Fee for request for examination | KRW 370,000 | KRW 370,000 | KRW 421,000 |
| Art. 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree | Violation | No violation | No violation |
The fee for request for examination was calculated as KRW 166,000 plus the number of claims multiplied by KRW 51,000. [4] Reducing the reference leaves the cost unchanged, but the combination with claim 3 is removed from the claims.
If claims are added by amendment after the request for examination, KRW 51,000 is paid for each added claim (Fee Regulation, Art. 2(1), subparagraph 9). [4] Applications filed before 1 May 2024 follow the previous provisions (Addenda No. 556, Art. 3). Under the previous provisions, the amount is KRW 44,000 for each added claim. [4]
The methods available depend on when the correction is made. An amendment in response to a notice of final rejection and an amendment filed with a request for re-examination are subject to the limits of Article 47(3) of the Patent Act. [2]
The Examination Guidelines treat an amendment that reduces the number of claims referred to in a multiple dependent claim as an amendment that narrows the claims (Part 4, Chapter 2, 2.2). [3] Reducing the reference can also be used after a notice of final rejection.
The same Guidelines treat an amendment that adds a new claim as an amendment that does not fall under Article 47(3), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act. The exception is an unavoidable new claim that results from rearranging the claims and is clearly explained in the written argument. [3]
How Korea differs
Korea does not allow a multiple dependent claim to refer to another multiple dependent claim. The United States, China and the PCT Regulations have the same prohibition, and Europe does not. Japan introduced the same prohibition for applications filed on or after 1 April 2022.
| Jurisdiction | Multiple dependent claim | Multiple dependent claim referring to a multiple dependent claim | Basis and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Korea | Allowed (reference in the alternative) | Prohibited | Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act, Art. 5(5) and 5(6), in force from 1 October 2025 [1] |
| United States | Allowed (reference in the alternative) | Prohibited | 37 CFR 1.75(c), eCFR as of 6 October 2026 [6] |
| Europe (EPO) | Allowed | No wording that prohibits it (objection if clarity suffers) | Rule 43(4) EPC, Guidelines for Examination F-IV 3.4, April 2026 edition [7] |
| Japan | Allowed | Prohibited for applications filed on or after 1 April 2022 | Regulation for Enforcement of the Patent Act (特許法施行規則), Art. 24-3, item 5 [11]; Japan Patent Office guidance, June 2026 [8] |
| China | Allowed (reference in the alternative) | Prohibited | Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law (专利法实施细则), Art. 25, as amended on 11 December 2023 [9] |
| PCT | Allowed (reference in the alternative) | Prohibited (no effect in a designated State whose national law allows it) | PCT Rule 6.4(a), in force from 1 January 2026 [10] |
Fees differ from the United States. The United States charges USD 925 per application for an application that contains a multiple dependent claim (37 CFR 1.16(j)). This is the amount for an applicant that is not a small entity or a micro entity. [6] For fee calculation, the United States counts a multiple dependent claim as the number of claims to which it directly refers (37 CFR 1.75(c)). [6] Korea counts it as one claim. [3]
A European-style claim set is difficult to use in Korea as it is. The EPO Guidelines for Examination state that a dependent claim can refer to one or more dependent claims. [7] A claim worded “according to any one of the preceding claims” violates Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree if the preceding claims include a multiple dependent claim. [1]
The Japanese prohibition applies only to applications filed on or after 1 April 2022. A PCT application with an international filing date before that date is not covered, even if it enters the Japanese national phase after that date. [8] In Korea, the last amendment date shown for Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree is 28 September 2006. [1]
A PCT international application may contain claims in the European style as filed. PCT Rule 6.4(a) provides that, if the national law of a designated State allows that manner of claiming, there is no effect in that State. [10]
Korea applies Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree to PCT national phase applications as well. An international application designating Korea is deemed a patent application filed on its international filing date (Patent Act, Art. 199(1)). The only provisions that Article 199(2) of the Patent Act excludes for international patent applications are Articles 42-2, 42-3 and 54. [2]
Amendment of an international patent application is subject to timing requirements. The application can be amended after the official fees are paid, the Korean translation is filed and the reference date has passed (Patent Act, Art. 208(1)). The Korean translation requirement does not apply to an international patent application filed in Korean. [2]
The reference date is the last day of the period for submitting domestic documents. The period for submitting domestic documents is 2 years and 7 months from the priority date (Patent Act, Art. 201(1)). If examination is requested within that period, the date of the request is the reference date (Art. 201(5)). [2]
What applicants should do
- In general, we suggest checking the references between claims before filing in Korea or entering the Korean national phase. A European-style claim set that is only translated can receive a notice of grounds for rejection for violation of the claim drafting requirements.
- We suggest correcting a prohibited reference by voluntary amendment before a notice of grounds for rejection is received. The reason is that an amendment that splits a claim is restricted after a notice of final rejection. For applications filed on or after 1 May 2024, the rate for added claims is the same before and after the request for examination.
- We suggest deciding whether to split a claim or reduce the reference according to the need for each combination. This means keeping as separate claims only the combinations for which protection is actually needed.
- We suggest confirming that the combinations removed by reducing the reference are stated in the description of the invention. This is the basis for bringing them back later by amendment or by a divisional application.
- Please confirm the claim structure of an individual case with your Korean agent.
FAQ
Can a claim in Korea be worded “according to any one of claims 1 to 3”?
Yes. The Examination Guidelines give this wording as an example of a reference in the alternative. [3] However, if any of claims 1 to 3 is a multiple dependent claim, the claim violates Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree. [1]
Can a dependent claim that refers to only one claim refer to a multiple dependent claim?
Yes. Article 5(6) of the Enforcement Decree applies only to a claim that refers to two or more claims. [1][3]
Does a multiple dependent claim cost more in official fees?
No. The fee for request for examination is KRW 51,000 for each claim, and a multiple dependent claim is counted as one claim. [3][4]
If a patent is registered with a prohibited reference, is the patent invalid?
Not on that ground alone. Violation of Article 42(8) is not among the grounds for invalidation in Article 133(1) of the Patent Act. [2] During examination it is a ground for rejection (Patent Act, Art. 62, subparagraph 4). [2]
Is it the same for utility models?
Yes. Article 3(4) and 3(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Utility Model Act provide the same. [5]
How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this
DEFINE IP Law Firm checks the references between claims when preparing a Korean application or entry into the Korean national phase. DEFINE IP Law Firm manages the number of claims as a cost item during prosecution. For questions about the claim structure of Korean applications, please write to contact@defineip.kr.
Sources
- Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act (특허법 시행령), Presidential Decree No. 35809, in force from 1 October 2025. Article 5. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법시행령 (verified 8 October 2026)
- Patent Act (특허법), Act No. 21134, in force from 11 November 2025. Articles 42, 47, 62, 63, 133, 199, 201 and 208. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법 (verified 8 October 2026)
- Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Patent Examination Guidelines (특허·실용신안 심사기준), MOIP Established Rule (지식재산처예규) No. 7, in force from 13 March 2026. Part 2, Chapter 4, 6.3, 6.5 and 6.6; the fee for request for examination part of Part 1, Chapter 7; Part 4, Chapter 2, 2.2. https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/특허·실용신안심사기준 (verified 8 October 2026)
- Regulation on the Collection of Patent Fees, etc. (특허료 등의 징수규칙), Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2098, in force from 27 February 2026. Article 2(1), subparagraphs 7 and 9; Addenda (Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 517, 1 August 2023), Art. 3; Addenda (Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 556, 1 May 2024), Art. 3. The previous amounts are those of Article 2(1), subparagraphs 7 and 9 of the versions in force from 4 February 2023 and from 1 August 2023. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허료등의징수규칙 (verified 8 October 2026)
- Enforcement Decree of the Utility Model Act (실용신안법 시행령), Presidential Decree No. 35809, in force from 1 October 2025. Article 3. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/실용신안법시행령 (verified 8 October 2026)
- US Code of Federal Regulations, 37 CFR 1.75(c) and 1.16(j), eCFR as of 6 October 2026. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.75 , https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.16 (verified 8 October 2026)
- EPO, Rule 43(4) EPC and Guidelines for Examination F-IV 3.4, April 2026 edition. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2026/f_iv_3_4.html (verified 8 October 2026)
- Japan Patent Office, マルチマルチクレームの制限について (Restriction on multi-multi claims), marked as updated on 8 June 2026. https://www.jpo.go.jp/system/patent/shinsa/letter/multimultichecker.html (verified 8 October 2026)
- China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), 中华人民共和国专利法实施细则(2023年修订) (Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, 2023 revision), amended on 11 December 2023, posted 21 December 2023. Article 25. https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/12/21/art_98_189197.html (verified 8 October 2026)
- WIPO, Regulations under the PCT, in force from 1 January 2026. Rule 6.4(a). https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r6.html (verified 8 October 2026)
- e-Gov Laws and Regulations Search of Japan (e-Gov 法令検索), 特許法施行規則 (Regulation for Enforcement of the Patent Act), Ordinance of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry No. 10 of 1960 (昭和35年通商産業省令第10号), Article 24-3. https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/335M50000400010 (verified 8 October 2026)