1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On December 19, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiffs of the submission of his/her opinion on the grounds that “an invention described in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the instant patent application invention refers to an invention described in Article 20-201-1217 of the Utility Model Gazette for the disclosure of comparable inventions and three preceding inventions in the instant lawsuit by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(2) The Plaintiffs submitted the amendment, including the specification, on February 8, 2017. However, on March 16, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office of the submission of his/her opinion on the ground that “the claim 3 of the amended invention of this case refers to the prior invention 2 and 3 of the registered Utility Model Gazette of the cited Invention and the instant lawsuit.”

The Plaintiffs submitted an amendment to the specification, etc. again on April 3, 2017. However, on May 22, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office of the submission of his/her opinion on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the claims in the instant patent application invention is denied by a combination of prior inventions 1 through 3.”

The Plaintiffs again submitted an amendment to the specification, etc. on May 31, 2017. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner made a decision of rejection on July 26, 2017 on the ground that the aforementioned grounds for rejection have not yet been resolved.

(3) On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs submitted an amendment, such as the specification, etc., and filed a request for reexamination. However, on September 28, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that “Paragraph 3 (3) of the Claim for Claim for Patent Application (hereinafter “instant Claim 3”) amended is still denied even if it is based on reexamination.”

(4) On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal against the decision of refusal as stated in the preceding paragraph (2) (2017 Won4946). However, the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 2018.