1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant on December 1, 2014, the instant trial decision, the judgment before remanding, and the judgment of remanding. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the nonobviousness of the patent invention is denied on the ground that “the instant patent invention is an unsatisfed invention, and there is no possibility of industrial applicability.” Moreover, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily cite the invention in accordance with the cited Invention 1 through 3, and thus, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “the instant trial decision”). The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the instant patent invention as of August 10, 2016, the instant patent invention was deemed as an invention having industrial applicability due to the completion of the patent invention, and thus, the nonobviousness is not denied by the cited Invention 1 through 3.

(2) On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above trial decision with the Patent Court (No. 2). The Patent Court examined the instant case as the Patent Court Decision 2016Heo6753, and rendered a judgment revoking the instant trial decision on February 7, 2017, on the ground that “the instant patent invention is a complete invention, and thus does not constitute an invention having industrial applicability as prescribed in the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act.”

3. On January 17, 2019, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court after having tried the instant case in the 2017Hu523 case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment before remanding the case, and remanded to this court, on the ground that “The patented invention in this case can be repeatedly executed by a person with ordinary skills according to the level of technology at the time of patent application, and it is specific and objective to the extent that the technical effect of the patented invention can be expected to be achieved, and it can be seen that it has been completed as an invention, as it is objectively and objectively constituted.”