The costs of litigation after appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

A. The summary of the case is the case where: (a) Plaintiff R&M (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff R&M”) and Plaintiff R&M (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff R&M”) granted exclusive license from Plaintiff R&M, asserting that Plaintiff M&M violated Plaintiff R’s patent rights; (b) the attached Form 2 products produced and sold by Defendant against Defendant were prohibited from manufacturing, etc. Defendant products; (c) disposal of finished products, etc.; and (d) compensation for damages based on tort (per Plaintiff’s KRW 100 million) and damages for delay on the ground of infringement of patent rights and exclusive license.

The first instance judgment dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that the plaintiffs' exercise of their rights based on the patent right or exclusive license is not allowed as an abuse of rights, since it is evident that the patented invention (including the patented invention based on the patent claim after correction) of the plaintiff M has no inventive step. The plaintiffs appealed against this.

Before remand, this Court also dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs' exercise of their rights based on the patent right or exclusive license is not allowed as an abuse of rights because the patented invention (including the patented invention based on the patent claim after correction) of the plaintiff M has no newness or inventive step, and the plaintiffs' appeal was filed against it.

In a separate trial procedure for invalidation of a patent for a plaintiff M's patented invention, the Supreme Court accepted the correction of the claim 1 and the claim 2, which is its subordinate claim, as legitimate during the patent invalidation trial procedure, and it became final and conclusive on October 27, 2012.