1. Patent registration number No. 1591685, among trial decisions rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 30, 2017 regarding cases No. 2016Da874.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for invalidation trial against the Defendant on the ground that “the instant patent invention is identical to the prior invention 1 or the prior invention 3 that was made public after the filing date of the patent application,” and that “the instant patent invention violates Article 29(3) of the Patent Act.” In the instant invalidation trial procedure, the Defendant corrected each of the claims 1, 6, 10, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 34 of the instant patent invention on March 3, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission rejected the instant patent invention on the ground that “the prior invention is identical to the prior invention 1 or 6, 10, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 34 of the Patent Act, and thus, it did not violate Article 29(3) of the Patent Act or the instant patent petition for invalidation trial on May 30, 2017.”

3) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff. On September 29, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending in this court, the Defendant corrected each of the claims 1, 6, 10, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 34 of the instant patent invention as stated in paragraph (2) of the Patent Tribunal No. 2017, Sept. 29, 2017, and the Defendant filed a petition for correction trial to delete each of the claims 9,22, 23, 24, 27, and 29, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision to accept the said petition for correction trial on November 23, 2017, and the said trial decision became final and conclusive as is.

B. The name of the invention of the instant patent invention (A) No. 2, 3, B No. 1, 5): The filing date of the camera 2) / The filing date of the priority claim / the registration date / the registration number: November 24, 2014 / April 11, 2014 and May 30, 2014 / January 29, 2016 / the patentee of the instant patent invention: Defendant 4 is recognized to have been corrected by a trial decision of the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2017Ma107, Nov. 23, 2017.