1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. In fact, the Defendants asserted that the patent of this case should be invalidated since the nonobviousness of the patent of this case is denied by the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiffs, a co-owner of the patent registration E (hereinafter “patent of this case”). On August 31, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the invention as 2016Nong2126, and rendered a trial ruling dismissing the said request (hereinafter “prior trial ruling”) on the determination that the nonobviousness of an invention described in each claim of this case is not denied by comparable invention 1 or 4.

The Defendants filed a lawsuit with this Court seeking the revocation of the preceding trial ruling, which was examined by this Court as 2017Heo7203, and thereafter, on June 22, 2018, the invention described in all claims of the instant patent invention was the same as the cited Invention 2 through 4, respectively.

However, prior inventions 1 are inventions different from comparable inventions 1.

(Specific combination relationship is denied by the non-obviousness, so the patent right should be invalidated and the prior decision to revoke the prior decision was rendered.

On November 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rendered a trial by 2018Hu1117, and the revocation judgment became final and conclusive as it is, by dismissing the trial non-speed.

Accordingly, the case subject to prior adjudication was remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant case on December 4, 2018 by 2018 (Revocation Judgment)159, and on December 4, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal did not submit new arguments and evidence from the parties to the case from the time the revocation judgment became final and conclusive until the trial of the case is completed. The grounds constituting the basis for revocation of the trial decision in the revocation judgment are as follows: (a) the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal binds the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on the relevant case.