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

A. On December 23, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the presentation of his/her opinion on the instant patent application invention as indicated in the Plaintiff’s Paragraph (b) below. On December 23, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office presented to the Plaintiff the following reasons: “A person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) is identical to prior inventions 1 through 3 of the instant case. Inasmuch as it is easily possible to make an invention from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not entitled to obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.” (2) On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff deleted claims 2, 4, and 7 of the instant patent application invention; (3), the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the amendment and written opinion to correct claims 1, 3, 6, and 8; (4) the examiner did not deny the nonobviousness of the instant patent application on the ground that the amendment made on June 21, 21, 3, and 31 through 28.

3) On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to the effect that the claims for the instant invention were amended as set forth in Section B(3) below, and filed a request for reexamination. However, on August 9, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal to grant a patent on the ground that “the grounds for rejection as of December 23, 2016, even if the Plaintiff’s amendment was made, could not be annulled.”

4) On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (2017 Won4340) (the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 7, 2019 on the ground that “the nonobviousness 1 of the instant patent application invention is denied by comparable invention 1 through 3, and where the claims are two or more claims, the nonobviousness 1 of which is denied by comparison invention 1 and the claims are subject to more than one of the claims, the application shall be rejected as a whole.”