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

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

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court determined that the patent claim Nos. 1, 3 through 11 of the instant patent invention (patent No. 1001354) of this case (patent No. 1001354) should be invalidated on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied by the cited inventions in its holding, and thus, the registration should be invalidated.

However, according to the records, on July 20, 2012, which was after the judgment of the court below was rendered by the defendant upon the defendant's request for a correction trial, the decision to correct the claim 1 of the patented invention of this case became final and conclusive at that time. Since the claim 3 through 11 of the patented invention of this case can be known that the corrected claim 1 of the patented invention of this case is a subordinate claim which directly or indirectly cited the corrected claim 1 of the patented invention, the patented invention of this case shall be deemed to have been registered by the specification after the correction.

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 patent invention prior to correction, was erroneous in the misapprehension of law which affected 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 examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench