1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. Name of the invention 1) invention of this case: Date of application 2) / Date of registration / Registration number : September 22, 1998 / March 3, 2001 / patentee (No. 10-2905753, Sept. 3, 2001): Defendant (Plaintiff for Review; hereinafter “Defendant”).

4) Claims (amended on May 5, 201): as stated in [Attachment 1].

B. 1) Prior Inventions 1 through 5 are irrelevant to issues, and thus, the description is omitted. 6) Prior Inventions 6 (Evidence 10-1 to 4) prior inventions 6) prior inventions is a smoke resistance monitoring device installed in B belonging to the Korea Coast Guard (design name: SBG-202/ Research: WTNICS products).

C. Prior to the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff (the Defendant for a retrial, hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

(3) On September 3, 2010, the patent invention of this case against the defendant in the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The patent invention of this case is identical to the preceding invention 2 and newness is denied, and a person who has ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician").

(2) On May 5, 2011, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a request for correction of the contents of the Claim Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant patent invention (attached Form 1) with respect to the patent invention on the ground that the nonobviousness of the invention can be denied, and accordingly, filed a request for correction with respect to the instant patent invention on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent invention is denied. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial on the ground that the correction of the claims Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant patent invention was examined as 2010Da2240, and on July 22, 2011, “The correction invention of the instant case is legitimate, but can be easily claimed by prior inventions 2, 3, and 4, and thus, the nonobviousness of the invention of the instant case is denied” (hereinafter referred to as “first trial decision”).

3. On the first trial decision, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision with the Patent Court No. 201Heo7898, and the Patent Court on February 24, 2012, on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the instant corrected invention is not denied by prior inventions 2, 3, and 4, etc.”