2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on January 15, 2015, the instant patent invention under Section B below is a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(2) On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to correct the claim 2 of the instant patent invention and the claim 3 of the instant patent invention on November 16, 2015, on which the said trial procedure is pending, and subsequently filed a request for correction on December 24, 2015, to delete the entire composition of the Claim 2 and Claim 3 of the instant patent invention, which was added in the correction request through the correction request, including the correction statement, and subsequently revised the previous correction.

3) On January 13, 2016, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission revoked the Plaintiff’s request for correction before the request for correction was made. Accordingly, where the scope of the patent is reduced pursuant to Article 136(1) of the Patent Act, it constitutes an illegal request for correction, and thus, it constitutes an illegal request for correction, and thus, the claim 2, 3, 5, 9, and 11 prior to the correction is denied by prior inventions 1 and 3. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a petition for correction trial to correct the claim 2, 3, and 3 of the patented invention as of February 23, 2016, but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on July 29, 2016 (Evidence 1: No. 1; No. 20148, Feb. 24, 2016).