2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case 1) against the Defendant, the patentee, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, on September 30, 2015, the instant invention subject to confirmation 8 (hereinafter “instant Claim 8”).

(2) On May 13, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 8 invention, not the free-to-work technology that can be easily conducted by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) from prior inventions 1 and 2, and that it falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 8 invention, as it is equivalent to the instant Claim 8 invention, and thus falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 8 invention.

B. The name of the Defendant’s patented invention (A evidence 3) invention 1: the accelerator manufacturing system, accelerator manufacturing method and accelerator 2) filing date/registration number: July 5, 2005 / / 19 April 19, 2006 / Claims 1 through 7 (no dispute is subject to 8) / 2005 / 10573906 of the Patent Act) claims 1 to 7 (each entry is omitted) / 8) / 205 / 205 / 205 / 2000 1 to 3) / 4 (the number is not subject to 8) / 205 / 205 / 2000 / 2000 / 2000 / 2000 / 2000 / 2000 / 200 / 2000 / 200 / 200