侵權訴訟探討
CEO教戰手冊　－　如何避免專利訴訟支出
Scott A. McKeown, Greg Gardella 撰文
李淑蓮 中文編譯／北美智權報 編輯部
2013.02.04
         

作者簡介：
Scott A. McKeown

Scott A. McKeown為美國Oblon Spivak 律師事務所合夥人，同時亦為事務所「Post Grant Patent Practice Group」的主要成員，主要負責領證後專利程序、專利訴訟及相關舉發議題；主要領域為電子、無線通訊、軟體、及電腦相關發明及商業模式，在專利法律相關領域有14年的經驗。

McKeown提供客戶全面性的領證後專利程序顧問服務，包括USPTO領證後複審程序、ITC及法院訴訟等法律途徑。

Greg Gardella

Greg Gardella為美國Oblon Spivak 律師事務所合夥人，同時亦為事務所「Post Grant Patent Practice Group」的主要成員，主要負責領證後專利程序、專利訴訟、策略咨詢、盡職調查、及興訟前調查等。

Gardella在專利法律相關領域有18年的經驗，並有多年擔任訴訟律師的經驗，早期為許多財富100大的企業提供服務，有許多高風險專利訴訟的經驗。

面對專利紛爭時，專利訴訟已經是為人熟知的途徑，當中可能會產生的變數及風險大家都應該很清楚。在一定程度上，USPTO的專利再審查制度 (patent reexamination) 也算是一個解決專利糾紛廣為人知的途徑。然而，最近多方再審查程序（Inter Partes Reexamination）已被多方複審程序（Inter Partes Review, IPR）所取代。全球的CEO和CFO都不禁要問：這一項對於專利紛爭的新選擇會讓現有的產業生態產生什麼變化?可預見的是，第一個多方複審案件的影響力即將對專利訴訟的版圖造成沖擊。

究竟在面對專利紛爭時，應該是要選擇上法院面對訴訟來捍衛自己的權益、還是要選擇私下和解來減輕因面對訴訟而導致的金錢損失及可能產生的危機（特別是面對專利蟑螂興起的訴訟）、還是應該藉由美國專利商標局（USPTO）的領證後複審程序（Post Grant Patent Proceedings）來解決問題？對許多企業的決策者來說，這是一個兩難的問題。

面對專利紛爭時，專利訴訟已經是為人熟知的途徑，當中可能會產生的變數及風險大家都應該很清楚；在一定程度上，USPTO的專利再審查制度 (patent reexamination) 也算是一個解決專利糾紛廣為人知的途徑。然而，最近多方再審查程序（Inter Partes Reexamination）已被多方複審程序（Inter Partes Review, IPR）所取代。多方複審程序是美國發明法的一個全新機制，全球的企業執行長和財務長都不禁要問：這一項對於專利紛爭的新選擇會讓現有的產業生態產生什麼變化?

在商業性考量上，多方複審程序與採法院途徑最基本的差異就是費用成本、可預測性、有效性、及速度。在費用成本方面，根據AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) 公告的統計數據顯示，如果走法院途徑來解決專利訴訟，動輒需要耗費上百萬美元，而且還要大量揭露企業本身的財務狀況。一般來說，專利審判暨上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，PTAB) 具有專門訓練及獲得專業授權，且若地院裁定暫停訴訟以待多方複審有所決定的狀況下，則多方複審程序的經濟效益已被證明比法院訴訟程序會高出10倍以上。

伴隨可預測性而來的就是效率。多方複審程序由3名專利行政法官組成的專利審判暨上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，PTAB) 負責審理，幾乎所有的專利行政法官都有相關的技術學位加上法律學位背景。而且，許多PTAB中的專利行政法官有多年處理專利紛爭的經驗 (例如爭議程序)，或本身就是執業的訴訟律師；因此PTAB相對來說是比較適合審理案子的，特別是一些涵蓋高度複雜技術的案子。當然，很難衡量PTAB在審理一般性或高度複雜性爭議時比法院的效率會好多少，然而，在PTAB專門的訓練及獲專業授權的狀況下，多方複審程序的有效性及可預測性估計比法院訴訟程序高出2倍。

如果單純直接的比較2種程序所需要的時間，典型的多方複審程序約需要17至18個月（假設有5個月的「前置作業期」，包括最長3個月的初期回應期及PTAB有最多3個月的時間來決定是否著手進行審理）；相對緊湊的時程大大改善了之前雙方複審程序的拖延及耽擱情況。根據聯邦司法部門的統計，法院的審理程序約需27個月，相比之下，多方複審程序比法院訴訟的時程縮短了1.5倍。

就經驗法則來看，多方複審程序比法院訴訟程序便宜10倍、有效性及可預測性高2倍、及處理速度快上1.5倍。當然有許多政策性或策略性的因素會讓當事人決定一些案子採取法院訴訟程序或藉由國際貿易委員會（International Trade Commission，ITC）來解決，然而，經驗法則可以讓企業的決策高層對多方複審程序的過程及相關優點之主要差異有一個初步的概念。可預見的是，第一個多方複審案件的影響力即將對專利訴訟的版圖造成沖擊。

關於 Oblon, Spivak:
有超過40年歷史的Oblon, Spivak 是美國最大的專利法律事務所之一，其位於美國維吉尼亞州的總部與美國專利商標局(USPTO)只有數步之遙。Oblon Spivak 的服務遍及全球各地的企業，包括日本、法國、德國及義大利等地，因此公司員工都能用包括日文、法文、德文、國語及韓文在內的數種語言與不同國家的客戶溝通。Oblon Spivak為美國排名第一的專利法律事務所，於2011年共獲得5,686件美國專利，比排名第2及第3位的事務所分別多出2,067件及2,350件。

 

CEO's Guide to Avoiding Patent Litigation Costs

By:  Scott A. McKeown and Greg Gardella

Business executives routinely wrestle with whether to defend a patent infringement suit in court, settle the dispute for less than the cost/risk of defending it (especially in the case of patent “troll” suits), or seek the help of the USPTO to address the problem patent via a post grant patent proceeding. Patent litigation is a well-worn path and the variables and risks associated with it are relatively well understood. The same can, to an extent, be said of patent reexamination at the USPTO. But now that inter partes reexamination has been replaced with inter partes review (IPR), an entirely new mechanism of the America Invents act, CEOs and CFOs around the world are asking how this new option alters the existing landscape.

The primary business distinctions between IPR and court proceedings are cost, predictability, effectiveness, and speed. With respect to cost, according to statistics published by AIPLA and others, defending a patent lawsuit through trial costs well in into the millions of dollars for cases involving substantial financial exposure. IPR, in the vast majority of cases, will cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a business rule of thumb, IPR should prove to be about an order of magnitude more cost effective assuming that the district court litigation is stayed pending the resolution of the IPR.

Predictability can be addressed alongside effectiveness. IPR proceedings are adjudicated by a panel of three Administrative Patent Judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). All or virtually all of the APJs assigned to a given case will have a technical degree in a relevant science in addition to a law degree. Many APJs in the growing Trial Section of the PTAB also have decades of previous experience conducting patent interferences (i.e., contested proceedings), or as litigators in private practice. The PTAB accordingly is better suited to adjudicate cases involving cases of any substantial technical complexity. It’s difficult, of course, to quantify the extent to which the PTAB will prove to be more effective than district courts in adjudicating moderately or highly complex validity disputes. Yet, based upon the specialized training and mandate of the PTAB a fair estimate is that IPRs will prove to be at least twice as effective and predictable as district court litigation.

Comparing the speed of the two proceedings is a bit more straightforward. The typical IPR should result in a written decision in about 17 to 18 months (assuming a five month “front end” which includes up to 3 months for a preliminary response and up to 3 months for the PTAB decision whether to institute a trial). This relatively compact timeline vastly improves the well publicized delays of inter partes patent reexamination. Time-to-trial in district courts averages about 27 months according to statistics published by the federal judiciary. Accordingly, IPR proceedings are about one and a half times faster than district court litigation.

As a rule of thumb, then, IPR should prove to be about ten times cheaper, twice as effective and predictable, and one and a half times faster than litigating validity in district court. There are of course myriad strategic and tactical factors which in some cases will dictate that a particular case should be litigated entirely in the district court or International Trade Commission. However, this rule of thumb should provide executives a rough idea of the major differences between the proceedings and the relative advantages of IPR. The impact of the first IPR filings are just now beginning to affect the patent litigation landscape.

About Oblon, Spivak:
Companies across the world depend on Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt to help them establish, leverage and protect their intellectual property assets in the United States and abroad. Headquartered within steps of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Oblon, Spivak is one of the largest law firms in the United States focusing exclusively on intellectual property law.

 
Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團