但在實務上,PTAB對上述「由專利或印刷出版物組成的先前技術」範圍,是否包含申請人所承認的先前技術之解釋莫衷一是,造成專利權之挑戰者和專利權人在專利無效爭訟上無所適從。因此,USPTO利用高通公司與蘋果公司間專利無效紛爭等重大矚目案件,對PTAB發布具有拘束力的指導備忘錄,並在本文介紹的2022年Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.案經CAFC確認後[2],終告塵埃落定。
但回歸專利申請的撰寫實務上,提醒讀者在撰寫說明書時,應特別留意切勿將未公開的技術寫入先前技術(或Background),或將技術描述為「眾所皆知的」(well-known)或「習知的」(conventional)而被認定為AAPA。同時,在申請及答辯過程中亦應避免使用諸如「眾所皆知」(It is well known that…)、「眾所認識的」(It is well understood that…)或「本領域技術人員都很熟悉的」(One of skill in the art would readily understand that…)等類似之陳述,以避免成為專利權之挑戰者或IPR審查時架構不利於專利權人之一般常識的佐證依據。
備註:
35 U.S.C.§ 311(b). (“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”)
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2836 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2022).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0163364.
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01315, Paper 26, at 22 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2020).
See Sony Corp. v. Collabo Innovations, Inc., IPR2016-00940, Paper 7 at 30 (PTAB Oct. 24, 2016) ;Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00741, Paper 8, at 5-6 (PTAB Aug. 20, 2015) ;LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., IPR2015-01987, Paper 7, at 18 (PTAB March 24, 2016).
Intel Corp. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, IPR2018-00951, Paper 7 at 22-24 (PTAB Dec. 4, 2018).
Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Shockwave Med., Inc., IPR2019-00405, Paper 75, at 2-3, 35-36 (PTAB Jul. 8, 2020).