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 1) / : The name of the invention C/D/E 2: F3) the inventor: Defendant 4: (a) the inventor, G, H, and I, who was entered from the automatic test device in the claim 1, printed out the test data for DNA subject to the test; (b) the method of transmitting the DNA Qua Dong, which was entered from the automatic test device, using the DNA Qua Dong, in the process of printing out the test data for DNA subject to the test from the automatic test device; (c) the process of separating the DNA Qua Dong, which was charged from the automatic test, into the process of separating the aforementioned DNA and sub-request 1 to the upper Qua, into the process of removing the DNA and sub-claim 2 from the radio frequency list, using the above automatic test device in the process of removing the DNA and sub-claim 1 to the end of Q 2; and (b) the process of separating the DNA and sub-face 1 to the end of Q.

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. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff “The instant patent invention is an employee’s 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 to 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 under Article 133(1)2 of the Patent Act.”