1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the instant patent invention with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board against the Plaintiff, claiming that “The nonobviousness of the instant patent invention can be easily derived from prior inventions 1 through 4, because a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily derive from the prior inventions 1 through 4,” and filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the instant patent invention. In the foregoing invalidation trial proceeding, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction on February 15, 2016, and again filed a request for correction of the contents of the instant patent invention as described in Article 1(b)4 of the Patent Act, on February 27, 2017.

2) On May 11, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board recognized the Plaintiff’s request for correction as lawful, and recognized it. “The amended patented invention 1 through 4 prior inventions 3 was submitted as comparable invention 5 at the instant trial decision stage, and prior inventions 4 was submitted as comparable invention 6. The nonobviousness of the patent invention 1: (B) title of the instant patent invention (Evidence A) invention: C2: the filing date/registration date/registration date/registration number: D/ E/F/Patent G application number; (b) the Defendant filed a request for a trial for invalidation of registration with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015Da4463, May 1, 2017; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a corrected trial decision under the Patent Tribunal No. 2017, Apr. 27, 2017; and (d) the Plaintiff filed a corrected trial decision No. 2017, May 27, 2017.

The patented invention of this case corrected by the above correction request is "the corrected invention of this case", and Paragraph (1) of this case is "the invention of this case", and the remaining claims are the same.