The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Costs of lawsuit include the part resulting from the participation.

1. Basic facts

A. From November 21, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the Defendants filed a request for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant patent invention with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, “The invention subject to confirmation as described in paragraph (c) below (hereinafter “the invention subject to confirmation”) scheduled to be conducted by the Defendant does not fall within the scope of the right of the instant patent invention because it does not include the essential elements of the patent invention described in paragraph (b) below (hereinafter “the instant patent invention”).” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated jointly on the grounds that both the above claims of the Defendants are the identical patent invention and the challenged invention are identical, on March 15, 2019, on the grounds that the aforementioned claims of the Defendants are the identical patent invention and the challenged invention are also identical, the benefits of confirmation are recognized, and the Plaintiff’s claim is not deemed to fall within the scope of the instant patent invention subject to examination as “the instant patent invention subject to confirmation” (hereinafter “the instant patent invention subject to confirmation”).

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that the instant trial decision was unlawful. (b) The name of the instant patent invention 1: AA2; the filing date/priority filing date/registration date/registration date/registration number: AB/C/patent AD3: the patentee: Plaintiff 4); the patent claim of the Plaintiff 1; (a) the patent claim of the Plaintiff 1; (b) the patent application of the claim of the Plaintiff 1 (a); and (b) the inner part including the pooptyal radar salt, pro-friendly high-friendliness, and pro-friendly additives.