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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of a patent invention(registration No. 931745) of this case(registration No. 931745) is denied by comparable inventions as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, based on the claim Nos. 1 through (5) of the scope of the patent invention(registration No. 93174) of this case(s) using the name “confisc

However, according to the records, on August 29, 2014, which was after the decision of the court below was rendered upon the defendant's request for a correction trial, the claim 1 of the patented invention in this case was corrected, and the decision of deletion of claim 2 to claim 5 became final and conclusive. Thus, pursuant to Article 136 (8) of the Patent Act, the claim 1 to claim 5 of the patented invention in this case should be deemed to have been registered by the specification after all correction was made.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which examined and determined the invalidation of the patent of this case as the subject of each of the above patent claims prior to correction, became grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.