1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 23, 2014 on the case No. 2014Dang97 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On January 13, 2014, the Defendants asserted 1 and 2 of the instant patent invention against the Plaintiffs who are patentees in the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The Defendants are those with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the relevant invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(2) On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for correction to correct the claim 1 and 2 of the instant patent invention on which the said trial proceedings were pending, by asserting that the nonobviousness is denied as it could easily be claimed from prior inventions 1 through 4.

3) On September 23, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board recognized the above correction request, and rendered a trial ruling accepting the Defendants’ claim for a trial on invalidation of registration on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied by prior inventions 1, 2, and 4. (4) The Plaintiffs filed a petition for a trial for correction (2014No. 105) with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, asserting that the deletion of the claim 1 and 3 of the instant patent invention on October 16, 2014 and the reorganization of the claim 2, including the claim 3 deleted in the instant patent claim 2, satisfies the correction requirements.

5) On December 5, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the Plaintiffs’ claim for correction on the ground that the said petition for correction trial satisfies the correction requirements under Article 136(1) through (3) of the Patent Act, and that the said corrected claims 2, 4, and 6 cannot be easily claimed from the preceding inventions by ordinary technicians, thereby satisfying the correction requirements under Article 136(4) of the Patent Act. At that time, the said trial ruling became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “ Claim 2, for which the correction becomes final and conclusive,” and the remaining claims were made in the same manner). (b) The name of the invention of the Plaintiffs’ correction invention (No. 9, No. 8, and No. 29) invention: support stand for support, and the publication between the amounts of hybrids using the said corrected claims, which have been made from the first day and the second day.