1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The title of the patented invention (A) invention of this case (A) 1: C2) filing date/registration date/registration number: Claims D/E/F3) 【 Claim 1’ each of the signals stated in paragraph 1’s claim , holding a majority of the DoUT calls connected to each DUT of the DUT (Device UT) having a large number of pooling operations and pooling operation ODT resistance; each of the above DUT circuits provides the base voltages of each of the above DF lines; each of the above DF lines provides the base voltages to the former voltages, but each of the above DF supplier supplies the base voltages to the former voltages; each of the above D/E/F3 claims is connected to DUTs that are connected to DUT 1’s DUTs.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant patent invention with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant Company on December 21, 2015, stating that “The instant patent invention is an employee invention belonging to the Defendant Company’s business area and the Plaintiff’s business scope, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant Company of the completion of the instant patent invention, and the Defendant Company filed an application for the patent registration of the instant patent invention without succeeding to the Plaintiff’s right. Therefore, the instant patent invention is not filed by the inventor or his successor, and thus is in violation of Article 33(1) 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 with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 29, 2016, and filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant patent invention with the Plaintiff’s implied consent to the Plaintiff’s right to the patent invention.