1. All the claims of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Party’s status 1) Pakistan Co., Ltd. was merged with the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) on May 26, 2015;

hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff,” regardless of whether before or after the transfer of the lawsuit.

[] The registration number of the patented invention No. 705911 (title of the invention: the product produced from the shielded shielded air-shielded container, and gas diskettes manufactured from this, and the product manufactured from this; hereinafter “instant 1 patented invention”).

) and registration number No. 58944 (title of invention: product made of ionoly solid container and gas diskettes manufactured from this; hereinafter “patent No. 2 of this case”) and patent invention No. 585944

(2) On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired business related to the manufacture and sale of electronic materials, materials, and functional synthetic resin from the Plaintiff on April 28, 2016, and accordingly, transferred each of the instant patented inventions to the Plaintiff.

3) The Defendant, as a company engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts, etc., has the following products listed in the separate sheet as stated in paragraph (d) below (hereinafter “instant products”).

B) Production of the instant patent invention. (1) The instant patent invention related to the instant patent invention No. 1 (a) is related to the instant patent invention, and the instant patent invention No. 1) is deemed to be the Manoba Co., Ltd.

(B) On December 24, 2013, the Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied against the Plaintiff, and asserted that the instant patent invention falls under the free practice technology publicly notified before the application for patent invention of the instant case, and thus does not fall under the scope of the right to the instant patent invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da3339, Apr. 30, 2014).