The tape-type fluorescent marker uses a tape-type fluorescent film to mark instead of painting a liquid fluorescent color like a fluorescent pen. Joint patent holders, S and N, requested an affirmative confirmation trial for the scope of rights against Company B, claiming that the tape-type fluorescent marker falls under the scope of the S and N’s patent challenging the tape-type fluorescent marker in the picture. AIP on behalf of Company B studied on the prior arts and argued that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the patented invention due to different elements, and also argued that the challenged invention is a freely exploited invention, and thus, the scope of the patented invention does not affect the challenged invention. The trial court decided to dismiss the case because the challenged invention had a difference in the elements from the patent and thus, did not fall within the scope of the right. The decision was confirmed as the patentee did not request a revocation action with the decision of IPTAB.