The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined to the effect that the claims 1 to 6 of the instant patent invention (patent registration number E) named as “B” should be invalidated on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent registration is denied by comparable inventions 1 and 2 as indicated in the lower judgment.

However, according to the records, the defendant's request for a correction trial (Patent Tribunal No. 2015No. 20109) deleted paragraphs (1), (2), (4) and (5) of the claim of the patented invention of this case and the decision to correct paragraphs (3) and (6) became final and conclusive on December 17, 2015 after the decision of the court below was rendered.

Therefore, the patented invention of this case shall be deemed to have been registered by the specification after correction under Article 136(9) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which examined and determined the existence of grounds for invalidation of a patent on each of the above claims of the patented invention prior to correction, was erroneous in the misapprehension of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.