A. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the registered device C (hereinafter “instant petition”) on the ground that “the instant petition for confirmation does not fall under the scope of rights of the instant petition for registration” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da2348, Apr. 3, 2015; 2) the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal revised the description and drawings of the petition for confirmation as stated below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1084, Jul. 31, 2015; 200Da1084, Apr. 1, 2015; 208Da2017, Nov. 20, 2007) to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for the aforementioned petition for trial on the ground that the instant petition for confirmation falls under the scope of rights of the instant petition for registration.”

C) The subject matter of confirmation includes both the same composition as the subject matter of the instant registered device, and thus falls under the scope of the right to the instant registered device. B. The name of the device: D2) filing date/registration date/registration number: E/F/C3) owner of the utility model right: Defendant 4’s summary of the instant registered device.