1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 14, 2013 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2787 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. Name 1 of the patented invention in this case: The date of application for the smoking for strengthening the actual content and method 2) / Registration Date / Registration Number : June 17, 2004 / July 18, 2006 / Right Holder 10-604453) : The claim and drawings of the plaintiff 4: [Attachment 1] The patent application and drawings (attached Form 1].

B. Invention 1) Invention 6,291,370 B1 (Evidence 6 of the U.S. Patent Gazette published on September 18, 2001) is related to the "U.S. 6,291,370 B1" and the manufacturing method (choped fibergs lacing method) of the glass fibers, which are well cut to the hedging," which is the main contents and drawings of the cited invention 20-2830 (Evidence 7 of the Evidence No. 7 of the A) in the registered Utility Model Gazette publicly announced on December 1, 201, the main contents and drawings (attached Form 2) are as follows:

3) On February 4, 2003, the Japanese Patent Gazette published on the comparisond Invention 3, which read “Special 2003-34192 (No. 6)” (Evidence No. 6) and applied for registration invalidation trial (No. 2011-178) against the Plaintiff by asserting that “the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by the comparisond Invention 1, etc.” (No. 1) prior to the instant trial decision, Defendant Sejong City filed a claim against the Plaintiff for registration invalidation trial (No. 2011-178) by asserting that “the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by the comparisond Invention 1, etc.”

The Plaintiff filed a request for correction of deletion of claims under paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) during the trial proceeding. On April 13, 2012, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a ruling to dismiss a request for correction on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s request for correction is lawful, and the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention after correction is not denied by comparable invention 1, etc.”

The above ruling of the trial is the defendant Sejong City Co., Ltd.