2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

A. Circumstances 1 of the instant trial decision: Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”)

(2) On February 17, 2015, the Patent Tribunal stated the following (B) against the Plaintiff, a patentee of the instant patent invention: “The instant patent invention constitutes an unbuilt invention; and the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the instant patent invention (hereinafter “the description of the instant invention”) does not clearly and in detail indicate that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily practice the instant patent invention; thus, the claim 6 through 14 prior to the correction of the instant patent invention violates the requirements for the specification. Prior to the correction of the instant patent invention, the Claim 91659, published in the Patent Gazette on August 10, 2009, stated in the Patent Gazette No. 911659, “A request for correction is made for the correction of the invention in question (hereinafter “the invention in question”) by asserting that the invention in question is new or non-obviousness as indicated in the specification of the instant patent invention, and the method and method of manufacturing the invention in question.”

3) On January 18, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal recognized the Plaintiff’s correction on the ground that “the correction of the instant patent invention is lawful. However, the detailed description of the instant patent invention cannot be said to be written in detail to the extent that ordinary technicians can easily practice the instant patent invention.” However, even though the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal recognized the Plaintiff’s correction, it did not accept the Intervenor’s request for the trial (hereinafter