1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant’s prior trial ruling of the instant case was followed.

The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition against the Plaintiff, the patentee of the instant patent invention, for a trial on invalidation of a patent as to the preceding claim of the instant patent invention (hereinafter “instant petition for trial”), and in the invalidation trial procedure, the instant patent invention was corrected by a trial decision on a corrective trial petition (No. 2015No. 114, December 11, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board 1, 6, and 7). The cited invention is identical to the prior invention 1 in the instant lawsuit. The instant patent is denied newness or is identical to the prior invention 1 and 2 in the instant lawsuit, which is identical to the prior invention 1 and 2, inasmuch as non-obviousness is denied by means of the prior invention 1 and 2.”

B) On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a correction request with respect to the instant patented invention during the said invalidation trial procedure. On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a correction correction statement, such as the defect in the notification of the correction submission regarding the said request for correction, and the deletion of the claim 7 on March 20, 2018 (hereinafter “instant correction request”).

(C) On April 9, 2018, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission recognized the correction request of this case as lawful, and ordered by the previous trial decision. (1) Furthermore, the patented invention of this case constitutes an industrial-use invention that does not violate the natural rules. (2) The detailed description of the specification of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter “the description of the patented invention of this case”) is clearly and clearly stated that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) can easily practice the claim 1 and 6 of the patented invention of this case corrected by the correction request of this case. (3)