1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The title of the instant patent invention (1) invention: (2) filing date/registration date//registration number: E/F/C (3): The Defendant’s patent invention is the inventor; (2) the Plaintiff was the patentee at the time of the first registration of the instant patent invention; (3) on August 22, 2007, the transfer was registered to G (State); and (4) on August 12, 2008, the Defendant was transferred to the Defendant and finally acquired the patent right.

(4) Claims and major drawings: as described in [Attached Form 1].

(B) The claim No. 1 is referred to as "the patented invention No. 1 of this case", and the claim No. 2 of this case is referred to as "the patented invention No. 2 of this case".

The invention subject to confirmation of the invention subject to confirmation shall be specified as "D," and the description and drawings thereof shall be as specified in attached Form 2.

C. The cited Invention 1 (Evidence A No. 5) is related to the “displacement inserted device for snow removal” publicly notified by Article 20-0346 of the Utility Model Gazette on March 31, 2004, and the main content and drawings thereof are as stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 3.

(2) On November 2, 1999, the cited Invention 2 (Evidence 6) pertains to the assembly “the assembly (SNW POLO MING ASBY) containing the snow dispute,” publicly announced by the US Patent Gazette No. 005974702A on November 2, 199, and the main contents and drawings thereof are as stated in Paragraph 2 of the attached Table 3.

(1) On April 28, 2011, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the confirmation of the scope of the patent right by asserting that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this case.

(2) After having deliberated as the Patent Tribunal No. 201Da965, Jun. 28, 2012, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial ruling to the effect that “an invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the instant patent invention under paragraph (1) of this case, and does not fall under the scope of the right to the instant patent invention under paragraph (2) of this case.”

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the cited portion among the instant trial decision.