1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 30, 2013 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2012DaDa2920 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant’s claim 1 through 7 on the instant registered petition filed in the Intellectual Property Tribunal under the Intellectual Property Tribunal had ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains from 3 through 6 of the prior petition; (b) the Plaintiff is a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(ii) On December 30, 2013, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the claim 1 to 7 of the instant registered petition on the ground that the nonobviousness could not be easily created by ordinary technicians from the prior petition, and thus, the nonobviousness could not be denied.

3) On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision (No. 2014No. 706) with the Patent Court, and filed a petition for correction trial (No. 2014No. 777) with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 8, 2014, and the Defendant filed a trial ruling accepting correction on October 31, 2014, and the said trial ruling became final and conclusive on November 3, 2014. 4) on July 9, 2015, the Patent Court rendered a judgment revoking the trial decision on the ground that the nonobviousness of the claim No. 1 through No. 7 of the instant registered petition on the ground that the nonobviousness could be easily created by ordinary technicians from the previous petition (hereinafter referred to as “the lower judgment”).

5) Accordingly, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on August 7, 2015 (No. 2015Hu1317). On October 29, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court on the ground that the lower court determined the inventive step on the device identified in the specification prior to the correction of August 8, 2014, which was not the corrected specification, and rendered a judgment to remand the case to the Patent Court. (b) Name of the device in this case: 2) Date of application (the date of priority claim), date of registration (the date of priority claim), date of registration/registration: The date of April 6, 2012 (the date of February 17, 2012)/ date of registration (the owner of utility model right No. 20-463203): The summary of the device in this case for Defendant 4’s device in this case.