The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On May 31, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office presented to the Plaintiff the grounds of rejection that “the claim 1, 2, or 5 of the invention claimed in the instant application is identical to the prior invention 1 through 5 in the instant lawsuit. Pursuant to 1, 2, claims 3, or 5 are identical to the cited invention 1 or 5. Pursuant to the cited invention 1 or 3, claims 6, claims 7, and 8, claims 1 through 5, can easily be described by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, and the Plaintiff did not submit to the Plaintiff the amended patent application to the effect that “the patent applicant cannot obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act,” and the Plaintiff did not comply with the amended patent application to the effect that “the patent applicant would not obtain a patent pursuant to Articles 29(1) through 181, 2018.” and the amendment was removed from the patent examiner’s 1 to the amendment 2.1 through 181.2.

3) On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to amend the claims for the invention of this case as described in Section B(3) below, and filed a request for reexamination. However, on January 15, 2019, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office again issued a decision to reject the patent application of this case on the ground that “A claim that, even if the Plaintiff’s amendment was made, the claim 1 and no substantial amendment were made after the amendment, may be easily described by the ordinary skilled person 1 through 5, and thus, the ground for rejection was not resolved as of May 31, 2018.”

4...