1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiffs for a trial to confirm the scope of right on the ground that “the elements of the challenged invention being conducted by the Defendant are not identical or equal to the corresponding elements of Claim 1 of the instant patent invention, and the challenged invention constitutes a free-to-work technology that can be easily conducted by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) by prior invention 1 through 3, and the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right of Claim 1. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on April 18, 2016 with the aforementioned request for a trial to confirm the scope of right, and on the ground that “the challenged invention in question is not within the scope of the right of Claim 1, the invention in question is not within the scope of the right of Claim 2015No4146, and is not within the scope of the invention in question, and is not within the scope of Claim 1’s ordinary invention in question or within the scope of Claim 21 through No. 301’s.

B. The title of the instant patent invention (Evidence A 4) invention: The date of international filing/Korean translation submission/registration date/registration number on June 27, 2007: (a) / February 28, 2012 / Patent No. 11240623, Feb. 28, 2012; (b) the claims of the Plaintiffs 4 (the corrected publication of September 10, 2013) (the corrected publication of September 10, 2013) are distinct from the claims 1).