1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On November 14, 2016, C filed a request for a trial on invalidation of a patent (No. 2016Da3583) against the Plaintiffs, the patentee of the instant patent invention, as indicated in the Intellectual Property Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Patent 1 and 2 prior to the correction of the instant patent invention”), stating that “The nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is the same as the prior invention 1 and 3 filed by a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) in the instant lawsuit against the instant patent invention 1 and 2.” On June 21, 2018, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the said trial decision (hereinafter referred to as “related trial decision”) on the ground that “Claim 1 and 2 prior to the correction of the instant patent invention cannot be easily claimed from comparable inventions 1 and 2, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention cannot be denied.”

3) Accordingly, C’s lawsuit seeking the revocation of the relevant invalidation trial decision by this Court Decision 2018Heo5822 on July 18, 2018 (hereinafter “relevant invalidation case”) (hereinafter “relevant invalidation case”).

On March 8, 2019, this court filed a motion to revoke the relevant invalidation ruling on the ground that “A claim 1 prior to the amendment of the instant patent invention is the same as that of the prior invention 2 filed in the instant lawsuit for the prior invention 3. The prior invention 1 is the same as that of the prior invention 1 filed in the instant lawsuit for the prior invention 1. The nonobviousness is denied by combination, and the prior claim 2 prior to the amendment of the instant patent invention is the same as the prior invention 3 and the prior invention 1 and 2 are the same as that of the prior invention 3 filed in the instant lawsuit for the prior invention 1 and 2.” The court rendered a ruling revoking the relevant invalidation ruling on April 5, 2019 on the grounds that “the nonobviousness is denied by combination with the prior invention 3 and the prior invention 1 and 2 shall be the same as that of the prior invention 3. The appeal was dismissed on July 11, 2019, and the final judgment of this court became final and conclusive.” Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs continued to the relevant invalidation ruling.