2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed a trial for invalidation of a patent on the instant patent invention under the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board 2017Da2556 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, a patentee of the instant patent invention, as indicated in paragraph (b) below, and in the said trial proceeding, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the claim 1, 5, and 2, and 4 of the instant patent invention were deleted in the course of the examination. Not only is newness is denied, but also the inventive step is denied, so the patent must be invalidated.” 2) Accordingly, the Defendant issued a request for correction of the content that revises the claim 1 of the instant patent invention during the said trial proceeding (hereinafter “instant request for correction”).

3) On August 31, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal did not recognize the Defendant’s instant request for correction on the ground that the Defendant’s request for correction was not made within the scope of the matters indicated in the specification or drawings of the instant patent invention, and does not meet the requirements under Article 136(3) of the Patent Act. The instant patent invention is not denied under Articles 1 and 5 of the comparable Invention 1 or 8 comparable Invention 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are the same as the prior invention 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 5 of the instant case. Linked Invention 6 announced on August 16, 2004, the invention “the structure of an indoor colon” in Article 20-359289 of the Registered Utility Model Gazette, and comparable Invention 7 did not dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication on the instant invention under the name of “the prior art No. 290-5,” which was published on August 16, 2004.