為扭轉個案裁量的非議,USPTO於2018年9月成立PTAB判決先例意見小組(Precedential Opinion Panel,POP),其成員包含局長、審查委員和首席行政專利法官。依該新修訂的標準作業流程,POP可協助USPTO指定哪些PTAB的最終書面決定是對於後案具有拘束力的先例(precedential),哪些則僅具有指導性(informative),期增加PTAB最終書面決定(final written decision)的可預測性和信賴度[8]。
PTAB將2017年General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha案(General Plastic案)[9]指定為「重複」針對同一專利提出請求的IPR案件(即"follow-on" or "serial" petitions challenging the same patent)中,後續IPR能否立案的判例。該判決中確立7點(但不限於)判斷基準,並收錄於之後的PTAB審理指引,成為正式規則,包含:
1. 是否為同一請求人對於同一專利之同一請求項提出專利複審案的申請(whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent);
2. 前次專利複審案提出時,該請求人是否知悉或應知悉後專利複審案主張之先前技術(whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it);
3. 後專利複審案提出時,前專利複審案是否已進展至專利權人提出初步回應或PTAB是否已作出立案決定(whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner's preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board's decision on whether to institute review in the first petition);
4. 申請人從得知後專利複審案主張的先前技術到提出該專利複審案的時間長度是否合理(the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition);
5. 申請人對於專利複審前後案之提出時間間隔是否具合理解釋(whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent);
6. PTAB妥善運用有限資源的考量(the finite resources of the Board);和
7. 依法,對有專利訴訟在前之情形者,提出專利複審案的間隔不能超過一年[10] (the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a) (11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review)。
嗣後,PTAB復將2018年NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs案(NHK案)[11]和2020年Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. 案(NHK案)[12]指定為具有拘束力的先例,兩先例中作為裁量權時的考量因子被稱為NHK-Fintiv 規則。其中,PTAB在Fintiv案的最終書面決定亦明確揭示6點(但不限於)判斷基準,包含:
1. 若PTAB立案進行專利複審案,併行審理訴訟的法院是否會准許或有證據顯示可准予暫停訴訟(whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted);
2. 併行審理訴訟之法院所指定的審判期日,與PTAB做出專利複審案之最終書面決定的計畫法定期限,兩日期間的接近程度(proximity of the court's trial date to the Board's projected statutory deadline for a final written decision);
3. 併行審理訴訟之法院訴訟程序中,法院與訴訟當事人的付出程度(investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties);
4. 專利複審案和併行審理訴訟之法院訴訟中,兩者提出爭點的重疊程度(overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding);
5. 併行審理訴訟之法院訴訟中的被告,與專利複審案申請人是否隸屬於同一實體(whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party);和
6. 影響PTAB行使裁量權的其他情況,包括案件實質內容(other circumstances that impact the Board's exercise of discretion, including the merits)。
小結
前述種種判例和規則修訂顯示PTAB近年著力於IPR程序效率與公平性。其歸根究底主要在於PTAB欲防止產業界重覆提起IPR之審查,使專利權人疲於訟累、消耗專利行政主管機關的有限資源,亦強調程序上的正當與公平性,以扭轉學術與實務界認為IPR為專利殺手(patent killer)的形象。然而,筆者認為此舉誠然會增進IPR程序的經濟性和跨管轄權與審判機構 (cross- jurisdiction and tribunal)的判決一致性,但相對來說,亦以行政權調整人民循公眾審查機制舉發無效專利的門檻,而相當程度限制了國會清楚賦予公眾以不同證據標準挑戰專利有效性的權益,產業界也應隨之調整自身策略[13]。
35 U.S.C. § 315(b). 楊智傑、黃婷翊,美國專利複審程序及Cuozzo Speed Technologies,LLC v. Lee案,專利師,第27期,頁25-26,2016年10月。
35 U.S.C. § 314(d). 美國最高法院亦已經就此確認,指出美國專利法第314 條第(d)項就本條下關於IPR 程序立案與否的決定(whether to institute an inter partes review)係屬終局且不得上訴(final and non-appealable)。Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2139-40 (2016). 陳在方,美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革──論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效,交大法學評論,第1期,頁27-31,2017年09月。
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19), Section II.B.4.i.
Id. ("the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review").
NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, 2018 WL 4373643 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential)
Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)