The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case overview and key issue

A. On April 8, 2014, G alleged that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention (patent number F) using the name “C” against the Defendant was denied, and filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration, but was dismissed, and the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the trial decision became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu2204 Decided March 24, 2016), and the said trial decision (hereinafter “prior final and conclusive trial decision”) became final and conclusive.

B. On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by filing a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration against the Defendant. However, on December 27, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling dismissing the instant patent application on the ground that the instant trial on invalidation of registration violates the res judicata doctrine under Article 163 of the Patent Act by filing a petition for a trial on the same facts and evidence with the prior final and conclusive trial ruling.

C. On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the foregoing rejection trial ruling, and the lower court asserted the new grounds for invalidation, such as the lack of description and denial of newness, which were not asserted in the prior final and conclusive trial ruling and the instant invalidation trial procedure.

The key issue of this case is when and how the standard point of time to determine whether a patent constitutes “identical facts and evidence” in applying the principle of res judicata prescribed in Article 163 of the Patent Act in a patent invalidation trial is how the psychological scope of a litigation seeking revocation of a trial decision of rejection.

2. Legal principles on the prohibition against double Jeopardy, etc. under the Patent Act

(a) Article 163 of the Patent Act provides that "where a trial ruling rendered under this Act becomes final and conclusive, no person may request a trial again on the same facts or evidence: Provided, That this shall not apply where the final and conclusive trial ruling is a rejection."