1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 당사자들의 지위 원고(원래 상호는 ‘지니네트웍스 주식회사’였으나 2017. 3. 21. 현재의 상호로 변경되었다)는 소프트웨어 및 하드웨어 자문, 개발 및 공급업 등을 영위하는 회사이다.

Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a company that establishes an integrated management system to check the security conditions of company members’ computer terminals, and Defendant B serves as an internal director with the power of attorney of Defendant A from 2009 to 2009.

B. Defendant A’s patented invention and the Plaintiff’s patented product Defendant A filed an application for a patent under the name “D” (hereinafter “instant patented invention”) and completed the registration of the patent to EF. The patent claims are as indicated in the attached patent claims.

(The claims claim No. 2 were deleted in the process of the examination and consisted of nine paragraphs (1) and (3) through (10). The Plaintiff developed each of the “Genian CAM products,” “Genian NAC products with network connection control and management functions,” “Genian NAC products with network connection control and management functions,” and “Genian Round” products with the management functions of the PPC Section. On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied the products of Genian CAM and Genian NAC products around April 23, 2010 in accordance with the Convention on the Supply of Goods or Technical Assistance with Life Lighting.

C. (1) On November 1, 2012, Defendant A’s application for a provisional injunction against patent infringement against the Plaintiff by Defendant A, including the proceedings between the parties, is “the instant product” against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012.

2) On the ground that the patent invention of this case is in violation of the patent invention of this case, Suwon District Court Ansan Branch (2012Kahap143, 2012 Kahap143, hereinafter referred to as "provisional disposition of this case").

(B) On May 21, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision to dismiss the said application on the ground that there is a lack of vindication of the right to preserve and the need for preservation (2 Plaintiff’s instant application).