Through conducting a comparative analysis with foreign systems, this study identifies problems in Korea’s patent correction system and proposes improvements. In patent infringement suits, defendants challenge patentees’ rights through invalidation trials. Patentees can amend claims to overcome invalidity or clarify the ambiguous scope of such claims. During invalidation or correction i nvalidation trials, patentees may amend the scope of the claims through a correction request or via a correction trial. In Korea, the absence of correction opportunity limits and the allowance of post-deadline invalidity evidence encourage trial prolongation and process abuse risks. In the U.S., ex parte re-examination mandates amendment responses within two months post-notice, whereas IPR/PGR permits a single post-initiation amendment. In 2003, Japan permitted correction trials within 90 days of invalidation appeal filing, but repealed this in 2011, banning post-appeal corrections. In Europe, invalidation corrections require stating non-inclusion reasons in initial pleadings, prior-stage impossibilities, and lack of prejudice toward opponents. For swift patent dispute resolution and patentee protection, this study proposes permitting correction requests in response to the submission of new evidence in invalidation trials, post-appeal correction restrictions (with exceptions), and non-public pre-hearings.