1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration number/filing date/registration date of the instant patent invention 1) / : The name of the invention C/D/E 2: F3: Defendant 4) inventor: Claim 5) : Diveer recording the test pattern pattern on the semiconductor subject to inspection with multiple entry and output channels in accordance with the table pattern No. 1; Diveer printing out signal comparing the test pattern signals and standard signals recorded in the semiconductor subject to inspection by the said Diveer with the line signals compared to those recorded in the test semiconductor; ALPG (AL Lagothm Gener)’s signal printed out from the semiconductor subject to inspection; printed out to the said Diveer, printed out to the semiconductor, and omitted to the semiconductor signal No. 2 of the ALPG 2/S 2; and omitted to the semiconductor signal No. 1 of the aforesaid line using the comparable signal printed from the aforesaid compliance.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for registration invalidation trial on the instant patent invention with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant Company. “The instant patent invention is an employee invention, and the Plaintiff, an inventor, notified the Defendant Company of the completion of the instant patent invention. The Defendant Company filed a patent application for the instant patent invention without succeeding the Plaintiff’s right. Therefore, the instant patent invention violates Article 33(1) of the Patent Act because it is not filed by the inventor or his successor, and thus, it is in violation of Article 133(1)2 of the Patent Act, and thus, should be invalidated pursuant to Article 133(1)2 of the Patent Act.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant patent invention in the instant case with the Intellectual Property Tribunal as an employee invention, and on October 26, 2016, the instant patent invention is jointly inventions with the Plaintiff and G, and there was no provision on the pre-contract succession to the Defendant Company. However, the Plaintiff did not separately have the right to obtain the patent on the instant patent invention.