1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 23, 2013 on the case No. 2012Da3092 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for registration invalidation trial (No. 2012Da3092, hereinafter “instant trial”) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendants, asserting that the name of the Defendants shall be “debrison block for submarine use,” and that the patent invention (patent registration number: No. 1183080, hereinafter “instant patent invention”) of which the Defendants are patent holders may easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) by prior art publicly notified prior to the filing of the patent application, and that the registration should be invalidated pursuant to Articles 133(1)1 and 29(2) of the Patent Act.

B. On August 23, 2013, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s instant request for a trial (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”) on the grounds that the instant patent invention could not easily be made by an ordinary skilled person from the prior inventions presented by the Plaintiff, representing the Plaintiff as the claimant or the Defendant as the respondent.

[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff 1, Gap 1, 2, 3, and all of the arguments

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. When a decision is made to commence the rehabilitation procedure under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the right to perform the debtor's business and manage and dispose of assets shall be exclusively attached to the administrator (Article 56(1)). Since the custodian becomes a party in the lawsuit concerning the debtor's property (Article 78), the right to file a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration of a patent in relation to the debtor's business is not the debtor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu1414, Jan. 12, 1995; 97Hu3371, Jan. 26, 1999; 2006Hu5416, Jan. 26, 2007). As seen earlier, the Intellectual Property Tribunal does not deny the nonobviousness of the patented invention by prior inventions by indicating the Plaintiff as the claimant.