The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an international application for the invention described in B (b) below (hereinafter “instant patent application invention”), and submitted a translation to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on January 4, 2013. On July 31, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) administered the Plaintiff’s drugs at necessary intervals at a certain amount of time.

In accordance with the preceding invention 1 (hereinafter “Prior invention 1”), the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office denied the non-obviousness of a new performance by the prior invention described in the claim 1 (hereinafter “Prior invention 1”), the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office also rejected the non-obviousness of the patent application since the claim 1, 13-17, 19, and 20 of the pending invention is substantially identical with the prior invention 1 in addition to the grounds that the non-obviousness is denied by the prior invention 1, and there is no unexpected obvious effect. Therefore, the ordinary skilled person can easily make an invention by the prior invention 1, and thus the non-obviousness is denied.

In addition, claims 2-12 and 18 are limited only to the matters that can be determined according to the need without technical difficulty by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention of this case pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician"). Thus, the claims 21 can easily be made from the preceding invention, and the composition of the prior invention 1 and the injection 21 has commenced.

A patent shall not be granted pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, since the prior inventions described in the paragraph (2) (hereinafter referred to as "prior inventions 2") can easily be made.

A notice of the submission of an opinion was given on the ground that it was “.”

2) On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment to and written opinion on the amendment of the claims for the instant patent application filed on September 28, 2017 (1), 11, 13-16, 18-21. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on February 26, 2018 (1), 13-17, 19, and 20 of the amended claims for patent application filed on February 26, 2018 (20) is still denied newness and non-obviousness by prior inventions 1.