Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On August 19, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office with respect to the instant invention described in the Plaintiff’s instant patent application as follows: (a) on August 19, 2017, the claim for patent application of the instant invention is identical to the prior invention 1 through 3 in the instant patent lawsuit in the instant patent application filed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

Inasmuch as an invention can be easily made, a patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act. A patent cannot be granted on the ground that the patent application does not meet the requirements under Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act due to lack of description of the claim 4 through 14.

The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of its opinion by presenting the reason that “......”

2) On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to correct the claim 1 of the instant patent application, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) on February 11, 2018, the nonobviousness of the claim of the instant patent application is still denied by the cited inventions.

For the reason that “the instant patent application was rejected,” the decision to reject the patent application was made.

3) On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff corrected the claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 of the instant patent application(s) and filed a request for reexamination after submitting an amendment and written opinion to delete the claim(s) 5. However, on June 5, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office filed a request for reexamination. “The non-obviousness of the claim(s) through 4, 6, and 14 of the instant patent application(s) was still denied by the cited invention(s) and the grounds for refusal were not resolved as to the violation of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.

For the reason that “the instant patent application was filed, the final decision to reject the patent application was made.”

4) On August 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal (No. 2018 Won 3312). On November 21, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a petition for an appeal against the patent application of this case on November 21, 2019.