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 right: F3: The name of the invention C/D/E 2: the Defendant Company 4) the inventor: the patent claims of the Plaintiff, G5) : 【 Claim 1’ multiple test semiconductor DNAs are loaded, including the 1rylates, which include a number of semiconductor DNAs selected by each semiconductor DNA, in accordance with subparagraph (a) and multiple semiconductors selected by each semiconductor DNAs; 2) the test signals of semiconductor DNAs listed in the table are printed out; 3) the test signals of semiconductors listed in the table are printed out, and the semiconductors are non-compliant of each semiconductor DNA system listed in the table 5’s semiconductor signals are non-compliant; 4) the patent claims of the Plaintiff, G5 - the patent claims of the Defendant 1 - multiple test semiconductors are loaded, and the 4) semiconductors and the 5’s semiconductor signals are printed out from each other in semiconductors and the 5’s semiconductor signals printed out in accordance with the aforesaid list.

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 and registered on 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, is in violation of Article 33(1)2 of the Patent Act. Therefore, the instant patent invention should be invalidated under Article 133(1)2 of the Patent Act.”