1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 13, 2015 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 172 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the instant trial ruling, the instant patent invention referred to in the claims, referred to in Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act to “PPPD” is very abstract and ambiguous and thus its composition and function cannot be specified; (b) thus, the instant trial ruling violated Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act; (c) the prior invention 2 as comparable invention 2; (d) prior invention 3 as comparable invention 5; and (e) prior invention 4 as comparable invention 6; and (d) prior invention 8 as prior invention 3.

The Patent Tribunal filed a petition against the Defendant for a trial on invalidation of patent of the instant patent invention as the Patent Tribunal No. 2014Da172, alleging that the inventive step is denied by virtue of the foregoing.

However, on July 13, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the following grounds: (a) the instant patented invention did not violate Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act; and (b) the inventive step is not denied.

Although the “PPD” described in the invention of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this case is a functional expression, the specification of the patented invention of this case can be clearly identified as to how the PPD consists of glycerine, Trithalians, water, etc., and how the active effects of leap or guidance, which is the function of glycerine and Trithalians, affect the invention of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this case (the identification number is 3,37, 42, 55), and its meaning can be clearly identified and confirmed.

Therefore, the phrase “legal pumps” described in the invention of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this case is clearly and concisely stated the invention, and thus does not constitute a violation of Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act.

The scope of the instant Claim 1 invention is different from that of the prior invention 2, and its composition is not easily derived by the prior invention 2, and its effect cannot be predicted from the prior invention 2.