1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On April 9, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on invalidation of a patent against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by prior inventions, etc. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant petition for a trial as 2014Da8566, and rendered the instant trial decision on October 15, 2015 on the following grounds: (a) the composition of “a differentiated security policy was formulated by the department of the company, and differentiated management of security policies by department” in Article 1(1) of the instant case’s Claim “a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

2) The instant Claim 1 invention can be easily derived from prior inventions 2, and the remainder of the composition is shown in the Prior Inventions 1 and 4. As such, the instant Claim 1 invention can be easily derived from prior inventions 1, 2, and 4 by a person with ordinary skills. (b) The instant Claim 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 invention can be easily derived from prior inventions 1, 2, and 4 by a person with ordinary skills. The instant Claim 5, 9 invention falls under the Prior Inventions 1 through 4, 1, 3, 6, and 7 submitted by the Plaintiff in the instant trial decision.

The non-obviousness is denied, as it can be easily derived by this.

3) Meanwhile, prior to the instant trial decision regarding the instant patent invention, the Defendant filed a petition for a patent invalidation trial against the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012 on the grounds that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention was denied by prior inventions 1 and by Article 862617 of the Patent Gazette.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board held the above case as 2012Da3058, and held on April 30, 2013, the nonobviousness of the invention 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the instant case is denied in accordance with the preceding invention 1 and the Patent Gazette 862617, and the instant case 3 and 4.