1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 30, 2014 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The name of the invention 1) invention in this case: The name of the invention in this case: the light device and the method of manufacturing 2) the date of priority claim / the date of international application / the number of application : September 26, 2003 / 204 / December 21, 2011 / 10-201-7030153: Plaintiff 4) claims (as amended on April 26, 2012) / [Attachment 9] claims 9 (as amended on April 26, 2012] claims 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 1”) / the first class (as amended on April 26, 201), which is formed above the first class (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 2”) and the first class (as well as the second class (hereinafter referred to as “the composition 3”) of the second class (the composition / [Attachment 2] claims 1 through 2131, 25-21 and 31 of the above mixed-Attachment 2 of [Attachment 1-21]

B. Cited Invention 1 (Evidence 2) A, published on September 7, 2001, the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2001-24079, published on September 7, 2001, is related to “the control method for a organic director, a organic director, a organic director, and his or her optical spectrum,” and the main contents and main drawings of the comparable Invention 2 (A. 3)(Evidence 2)(Evidence 2)(Evidence 2(Evidence 3), published on November 14, 2000, the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2000-31581, published on November 14, 200. The main contents and main drawings are as follows: (a) the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2000-31581 (Evidence 2-2).

C. 1) On February 28, 2012, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office: (a) regarding the invention in the instant case, “the claim 9-21, 29-35” can easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) prior to the filing of the application through simple combinations between the cited Invention 1 and 2; (b) the nonobviousness of the invention is denied; and (c) the claim 1-35 does not include any improved common technology compared to the prior art, and thus constitutes a group of inventions that form a single general invention concept, and thus, the patent is in violation of Article 45 of the Patent Act.