1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 25, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 865 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) the instant patent invention described in the foregoing paragraph (b) is the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter “former Patent Act”).

(2) On April 25, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a request for a trial on invalidation of a patent of the instant invention under Article 42(4)1 of the former Patent Act with the Intellectual Property Tribunal as the Intellectual Property Tribunal 2015Da865, asserting that the nonobviousness of a patent claim 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, and 15 is denied, as well as the lack of description under Article 42(4)1 of the former Patent Act, and that the claim 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 through 15 is not submitted in the instant lawsuit, and the nonobviousness of the patent of the instant invention is not denied by the Plaintiff’s prior invention in the instant lawsuit, which was disclosed on January 6, 2005, on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent of the instant invention is not denied by the Plaintiff’s prior invention in the instant case’s patent application No. 2005/284.

B. The title of the patented invention of this case (Evidence 2) invention: The name of the patented invention of this case (Evidence 2): 4- [4- [4-(4-lo-lo-3-Triprolululululululuene) - luxa (propethyl) - luxa), general name, namely, 4-[4- [4-(4-lo-lo-3-prolululululululuene)]-2-carbic acid (soarfenib)]-propheric acid (soarfeni) on February 22, 2006, 2006.

P-Toluene acid is not a p-Toluene.