1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

The purport of request for retrial.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The title of the patented invention in this case: C2) filing date/registration date/registration number: D/ E/F3): The plaintiff (the plaintiff in a retrial)

B. 1) On June 23, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial of the instant case against the Plaintiff on June 23, 2010, with the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 201609, the instant patent invention is a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technology field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(2) On October 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration on the grounds that the inventive step is denied by comparable inventions 1 and 2, and thus, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling on October 21, 2010 on the grounds that the inventive step is denied by comparable inventions 1 and 2.

3) On May 13, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision with 2010Heo8474 with respect to the said trial decision, and the Patent Court rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on the determination that the nonobviousness of the patent invention in the instant case is denied on the grounds that: (a) the nonobviousness of the patent invention in comparison with comparable invention 1, 201 is not recognized to be peculiar, complexity of composition, and effect; (b) the Plaintiff appealed to the instant judgment subject to retrial and appealed to the Supreme Court as 201Hu1036; and (c) the Supreme Court rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 14, 201 on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of final appeal by the Supreme Court falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedures for Appeal and therefore, the instant judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive on July 18, 2011.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is the registered utility model that was not subject to technical review and evaluation by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the instant patented invention is subject to technical review and evaluation by the Korean Intellectual Property Office.