1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration No. 1)/ Date of application/registration date: F3: The name of the invention C/D/E 2: the Plaintiff Company 4); the inventor: the Plaintiff; G5); the claim 1); 2) the waferer who connects the test H and the prob card for the wafera; the waferer who connects the wafera to the wafera for the wafera, the wafera by the waferer signal printed out by the above waferer; the signal ringer to obtain the hofera output from the above waferer; and the standard signals to be pre-determined from the above signals obtained ; and the Maraer and the Maer who printed out the accelerator information as a result of the comparison; 2) the analysis of whether the Mofer is capable of storing the mofers, including the above wafers, and the analysis of whether the mofer is capable of analyzing the momos, including the above na.

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 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.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant patent invention as the instant case on November 14, 2016.