2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant filed for a registration invalidation trial against the Plaintiff on the instant patent invention by asserting that “The instant patent invention is not clearly and in detail written in its specification that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily practice the invention, and thus, the nonobviousness is denied inasmuch as the ordinary technician violates Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, and the ordinary technician can easily make the invention by combining the invention 1 and 2.” In the trial proceeding for registration invalidation, the Plaintiff corrected the claims 1 and 4 of the instant patent invention as described in Article 2(2) of the Patent Act and filed a request for correction of the contents of the claim 2, as described in the foregoing paragraph (b) of the Patent Act.

(2) On April 29, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal recognized the instant correction request as lawful, and rendered a trial decision citing the above invalidation petition against the Defendant on the ground that “the instant patent invention corrected by the correction request is not clearly and in detail so that ordinary technicians can easily implement the invention, and thus, its nonobviousness is denied by prior invention 1 and 2” (Article 42(3) of the Patent Act). (b) The name of the instant patent invention (Evidence 3) invention: (2) the date of claiming the exemption disease priority claim / the date of filing of registration / the date of filing of registration / registration / registration : The date of April 9, 2003; (3) the instant patent invention corrected by the correction request is a combination of the instant patent invention with the Plaintiff on April 6, 2004 and the Plaintiff’s claim 1 and the Plaintiff’s claim 20-M (hereinafter referred to as “the instant patent invention”).