1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On September 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, the patentee, the Patent Tribunal; and (b) on September 30, 2015, the challenged invention is identical to the claim 8 of the instant patent invention (hereinafter “instant Claim 8”).

(2) On May 13, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a motion for a trial to confirm the scope of a right that does not fall under the scope of the right (No. 2015Da4758). (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the above petition for trial on the ground that “the invention in question does not fall under the free-to-work technology that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily conduct from prior inventions 1 and 2, but falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 8 invention in an equal relationship with the instant Claim 8 invention, and thus falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 8 invention.”

3) On June 7, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous trial decision with this court (No. 2016Heo4023). On October 13, 2016, this court held that the invention subject to confirmation falls under “the prior invention 3 or the prior invention 5 prior invention 3 or the prior invention 3 described in Article 10-40576 of the Registered Patent Gazette registered on November 4, 2003, “the method of manufacturing waits containing micro-organism accelerator as its principal ingredients and development,” the prior invention 4 constitutes “the prior invention 201-24741 disclosed on September 11, 201,” the prior invention 5 constitutes “the prior invention’s revocation of the previous patent application” and “the prior invention 1040-2481 published on March 19, 199.”

(4) The Plaintiff did not appeal against the revocation judgment.