1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiffs of the prior invention 1 or the prior invention 1 or the prior invention 2, which was disclosed before the filing date, and notified the Plaintiffs of the submission of an amendment and written opinion regarding the instant invention on November 27, 2014. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the amendment and written opinion to the Patent Tribunal on March 31, 2015, on the ground that “the prior invention could not obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act even if the Plaintiff’s amendment were made,” the Plaintiffs could not obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act on the same grounds as the Plaintiff’s amendment, and the Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the prior invention on March 31, 2015 with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board to the effect that “the prior invention cannot obtain a patent pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Patent Act on the ground that the amendment of the prior invention was made.”

4) On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended the specification, etc. of the instant patent application invention as described in Paragraph B below. However, on March 31, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner maintained the initial decision of refusal on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s re-examination was conducted on the basis of the specifications amended by November 20, 2015, and there is no matter to reverse the reasons for the decision of refusal even if re-examination was conducted on the basis of the specifications amended by the Plaintiff.” 5) March 22, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal maintained the initial decision of refusal.