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

A. (1) On July 14, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, a patentee, claiming that “the nonobviousness of the patent invention No. 880609 (hereinafter referred to as “patent invention of this case”) 1, 3, and 4 (hereinafter referred to as “paragraph (1) invention of this case”) refers to the previous technology parties to the patent invention of this case and the trial ruling of this case refers to the previous technology as “an invention subject to comparison.” Based on the combination of the two preceding inventions, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention, and thus, is denied.”

(2) On August 29, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board cited the instant trial ruling on the ground that “The prior art of this case and the prior art 1, 3, and 4 inventions correspond to the prior art 2 in the instant patent invention and the prior art 2 in the instant trial ruling, compared to the prior art 3-1 or 5 of the prior art 2 submitted by the Plaintiff and the documentary evidence used as the comparable art 2 in the instant trial ruling, compared to the documentary evidence 3-1 of the evidence 3-1 of the evidence 4-1 of the evidence 3-1 of the evidence 3-3 of the same evidence 4-3- of the reference drawings taken at the second oral hearing of the evidence 3-1 of the evidence 3-1 of the prior art 4-1 of the new evidence Gap evidence 3-4-1 of the new evidence Gap 5-4 of the new evidence Gap by combinations with the evidence 3-4 of the same evidence Gap.”

B. The title of the patented invention of this case (A) 2: the filing date/application number of the patented invention of this case: the registered date/registration number of Sep. 12, 2007 / No. 10-2007-92717 (3) of Sep. 12, 2007; the summary of the patented invention of this case as of Jan. 20, 2009 / the patented invention of this case is about protruding, and the patented invention of this case.