最近我一直在與同業討論目前開始出現於歐洲，而且已在美國廣受討論的「專利流氓行為」（Patent-Trolling）。特別是在未來「歐洲單一專利」（European Unitary Patent）開始生效後，對於其所將帶來之較負面影響，歐洲專利界都深感憂慮。本篇文章的主旨是要教導企業，應當如何以相對較為經濟的方式，來防禦此類攻擊。

請注意，本文所特別提到的是「較負面」的專利流氓行為之影響。因為雖然非專利實施實體（Non-Practicing Entity，簡稱NPE）自己並不生產與專利有關的產品，卻也沒有任何方法或理由去阻止一個在歐洲擁有合法專利排他權的NPE去行使這權利。專利流氓行為通常所導致的較負面影響在於，其係利用一種將法律制度原則適用於現實環境中所產生的微妙缺陷，也就是說，專利流氓讓一般公司覺得，在面對專利流氓的威脅時，比起調查自身是否確實侵犯一個有效的專利，直接付出權利金可能更為划算。

在這裡介紹一些「專利流氓」（Patent Trolls）所使用的一些「招數」（Tricks）。比方說專利流氓可能會丟出包含一大捆專利的警告函或侵權起訴狀，但其中只有一個是真正有效的專利，藉此威脅公司或作為獲取更多授權收入的恐嚇手段。另一種則是運用於取得禁制令與確認是否侵權，以及取得專利有效性結論之間的冗長審理時間，來迫使企業退出重要的市場。奠基於這些招數，專利流氓們主要是依賴一件事實，那就是若人們要在專利侵權案件中提出抗辯，也就是雇用律師並進行全面性的法庭訴訟攻防，即使取得勝利和抗辯成功，代價永遠會是很昂貴的。

以下的文章係與一種通過一中央審查系統而由歐洲專利局（European Patent Office， 簡稱EPO）授予專利，並可進一步成為國家專利之「歐洲單一專利」有關。如果專利流氓係擁有由歐洲各國的國家專利局所授予之國家專利，那麼可能會有更特定的解決方案，但這些並不是我們在這裡所要討論的。請注意，本文所討論的情況，基本上可以分為兩個階段：在該專利成為國家專利之前（也就是在EPO中），人們可以如何與之對抗；以及人們如何在其被核准之後，於國家層級進行對抗。

在EPO階段，人們只會在專利被公開之後，才能發現它的存在。如果人們知道某些特定專利流氓的名稱，就可以用相對極少的費用來進行專利監控服務。在發現可疑專利之後，我們可以選擇兩種用來保護自己的選項。其中一種是提交第三方意見（3rd party observations），以說服審查委員進行較嚴格的審查，藉此將該專利申請案的專利申請範圍，侷限至不會造成影響，甚至是達到使得整個專利申請案被基於有效性而加以核駁的程度。與美國的制度不同的是，這項服務在歐洲是免費的。另一種選項則是在其獲准之後提出異議（opposition）。這種方式比起提交第三方意見來得昂貴，但是比起美國相對應之核准後複審（PGR）或是多方複審（IPR）程序，這仍然是比較便宜。在EPO提出異議的一個優點是，異議人有權成為審查程序之一造，並且可以對於專利有效性提出質疑直到審查結束。這些選項的總合效果是，若那些專利流氓手上所持有的是品質上有疑問的專利，可能會被認定為無效，或者至少會停留在EPO的集中審查機關一段時間（目前平均審查時間是首次核准後大約再三年時間）。對於受到專利流氓威脅的公司來說，此一時日上的拖延本身可能就是非常有利的。同樣地，這比起被提起異議的專利必須於12-18個月內完成認定，同時會適用禁反言效力之美國的核准後複審（PGR）與多方複審（IPR）制度還要來得有利。

一旦專利申請被核准並成為國家專利後，情況就會變得較為複雜。在一些國家的法律制度中，可以說是對於專利流氓較為有利的。如前期文章《歐洲專利制度正面臨大幅但緩慢的改革》中所討論的，德國的系統提供了一種雙元審理（bifurcation）的法律制度，而這會導致有利於專利流氓行為的禁制令核准。此外，德國系統只允許人們在聯邦專利法院對於經核准之歐洲專利進行有效性攻擊。該法院審理品質雖然是極為優良，但是仍有賴於當事人僱用能在這個層級執業之律師，其費用當然是較為昂貴的。

我認為，在面對這些專利流氓行為時，英國的制度讓人們比較能夠捍衛自己的權益。英國智慧財產局（U.K. Intellectual Property Office，簡稱UKIPO）和德國專利局（Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt，簡稱DPMA）不同，它有提供「意見諮詢」（opinion）與「撤銷專利」（revocation）的相關服務。

「撤銷專利」的服務，基本上就是要求英國智慧財產局，針對已經核准之歐洲專利的有效性再進行認定。「意見諮詢」則是更為細緻的服務，其係針對於該專利是否有效，以及/或是一特定行為是否侵犯該專利等事項，向UKIPO提出詢問。該項意見諮詢服務會向公眾公開以進行意見交換，以協助UKIPO作出認定。UKIPO接著會在幾個月內，就所提出之詢問作出決定。請注意，意見諮詢服務與撤銷專利不同，意見諮詢服務並不具備拘束力（特別是在侵權判斷的議題上），而僅只是一份意見書。然而英國法院必須具有很好的理由，才能在之後得到與UKIPO相反的結論，而迄今的相關統計數據，皆傾向於支持UKIPO的結論。

要注意的是，與美國的類似審查系統和法院審級不同的是，這些服務並不需要表明利害關係人是誰（申請人可以是任何專利工程師或影武者）。這些程序的成本都遠比透過法院進行便宜得多，並且可以具有同樣的效果。此外，該等程序可以由專利工程師或是其他人來執行，如此一來就不需要負擔昂貴的律師或訴訟費用。

作者： 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 現任： 北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 經歷： Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師 Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士

How to avoid patent-trolling in Europe on the cheap!
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

Recently I have been discussing about the worries in European patent circles about the advent of the more negative aspects of patent-trolling that are now very much discussed in the US  appearing in Europe, especially under the European Unitary Patent when it comes into force. This is an article designed to show companies how to defend themselves from such attacks in a relatively cheap manner.

Please note that I specifically mention the more negative sides of patent-trolling explicitly. There is nothing to stop an NPE (Non-practicing entity) who holds legitimate patent monopoly rights in Europe from exercising those rights even though they do not produce products associated with the patent themselves. The negative aspects which are commonly attributed to patent trolling are using the subtleties of applying a principled legal system to real world environment, where patent trolls in a confrontation with other companies are able to make it more worthwhile for the company to pay licensing fees than investigate whether they infringe or not a valid patent monopoly right.

Some of the “tricks” used by “patent trolls” here mentioned can be threatening companies with infringement proceedings with a bundle of patents, only one of which is really valid, as a scare tactic or to get more licensing revenue. Another can be using the fact that long periods between conclusions reached on infringement and injunctions and those reached on validity at trial to force companies out of important markets. On top of all this, patent trolls rely on the fact that defending oneself from patent infringement cases is always expensive when one hires attorneys and goes to full-blown court trial, even if one wins and is successful.

The following article relates to patents which are granted through a centralized system by the European patent office and become national granted patent rights. More specific solutions may be possible if one has a particular patent being granted by a European national patent office that we will not deal with here. Please note that the situation basically separates in two phases: what one can do to fight patents before they become national patents (i.e. at the EPO) and what one can do at national level once they are granted.

At the EPO, one would only become aware of the patent once it was published. If one is aware of a specific patent troll’s name, one can start a patent watching service for relatively little expense. After this there are 2 options for defending oneself. One is to file 3rd party observations to convince the examiner to pursue the prosecution further, therefore limiting the patent application’s claims further to the point where they would not be effective or rejecting the entire patent application for invalidity. Unlike the US, this service is free in Europe. The other option is to file an opposition after grant. This is more expensive than 3rd party observations, but it is cheaper than the US equivalent of PGR or IPR. One advantage of filing oppositions at the EPO is that one has rights as party to the proceedings and can argue against the patent’s validity until the end. The net effect is that patents of dubious quality, such as those held by the “patent troll” are likely to be found invalid or, at least, held up by a centralized examination at the EPO for a substantial amount of time (mean average now is around 3 years after initial grant), and this delay alone can be very advantageous to companies threatened by patent trolls. Again, this is more advantageous than the US system of IPR and PGR, where the patents have to be decided upon within 12-18 months with estoppel rights then applying to it.

Once the patent is granted and has become a national right, the situation become more complicated. Some country’s legal systems could be said to favour patent trolls. The German system, as discussed in previous article <Big Changes Occurring in Europe (Slowly)>, provides for a bifurcated legal system and this leads to injunctions which favours patent trolling. Further, the German system only allows one to attack the validity of granted European patents at their Federal patent court. This is of excellent quality, but it relies on hiring relatively expensive attorneys able to practice at this level.

I would argue that the British system allows one to defend oneself better from such patent trolling. The UKIPO, unlike the DPMA (German Patent Office), offers an opinion and revocation service.
The revocation service basically asks the UKIPO to decide on the validity of the granted EP patent. The opinions service is slightly more nuanced – it asks the UKIPO whether the patent is valid and/or infringed by a particular action. This opinions service is then opened for consultation by the public for them to help the UKIPO make a decision. The UKIPO will then come to a decision on the questions asked within a couple of months. Please note that, unlike revocation, the opinions service is non-binding (especially on infringement) and is only an opinion. However a court would have to have a good reason to subsequently come to an opposing conclusion from the one reached by the UKIPO; and the statistics to date back up this conclusion.

Please note that, unlike US analogous systems and court systems, there is no need to declare who the party-of-interest is (only the person applying who can be any patent engineer or straw-man). The costs of either procedure are much cheaper than applying through courts and can have the same effect. Further, the procedure can be carried out by patent engineers or others without requiring expensive attorney or litigation fees.

Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney Experiences： European Patent Attorney, Bryers Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi Internship, EPO

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團