1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendants on July 2, 2015, “The instant patent invention was submitted by the Plaintiff to the Prior Invention 1 and 2 of the Prior Invention and the U.S. Patent Gazette No. 4,896,527. The nonobviousness of the patent invention is denied because a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention.” The nonobviousness of the patent invention is denied. The Defendants filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the patent registration on the grounds of “(2) the patent invention of the instant case where the said trial on invalidation is pending on September 7, 2015, the said trial on invalidation of the patent invention “the patent invention of the Prior Invention consists of materials that can be closed by materials being used in terms of the amount of acid use.”

3) After examining the above invalidation trial and request for correction as 2015Da3769, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a decision of this case that recognized the defendants' request for correction and dismissed the plaintiff's request for invalidation trial on the grounds that "the defendant's request for correction is lawful, and the correction invention of this case is not denied by prior inventions." B. The name of the invention of this case (Evidence A No. 3): C2: filing date/filing date/registration date/registration date/registration date: D/ E/F/G defendants filed a patent application (application number H) with respect to EC; on January 20, 2014, the first claim 1, 2, and 3 were not recognized, and the claim 2 cannot obtain a patent submission on the ground that the lack of inventive step is recorded (However, the examination opinion that the patent claim 4, an independent claim of this case, is non-obviousness, was included in the examination opinion that the patent claim 4 is non-obviousness.

Accordingly, the Defendants submitted written arguments and written amendments, but received a decision of rejection on July 25, 2014, and subsequently filed a request for reexamination D, as well as patentable.