智權報總覽 > 侵權訴訟探討           
 
聯邦巡迴法院的第一件多方複審判決
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
張宇凱中文翻譯/北美智權教育訓練處專利工程研究員
2015.02.25
聯邦巡迴法院未來似乎是不太傾向於扭轉PTAB的判決。所以專利所有人/對手,顯然應該試著在多方複審(IPR)的聽審會上為其之案件進行辯護,而不是抱持著此一判決,被輕易地翻轉的希望,在聯邦巡迴法院的上訴程序中進行爭取。

最近,聯邦巡迴法院公開了首件源自於一件基於已施行之AIA法案,而導入至USPTO專利審理暨訴願委員會(Patent Trial and Appeal Board;PTAB)中之多方複審(IPR)判決之訴願案的判決。此一首件多方複審判決係為re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC., 其之相關內容可以參考本報以前的報導文章「第一個美國專利多方複審案例評析」。此一判決不符PTAB訴願人之預期(其之請求項係基於先前技術而被認定為顯而易見), 便向聯邦巡迴法院提出上訴。

由於聯邦巡迴法院已就此一訴願判決應當要如何適用一事發表 聲明,事情就變得非常有趣。聯邦巡迴法院所作出的第一項重要判決是,聯邦巡迴法院認為不論該案的結果為何,其都無權認定 PTAB 是否有權先對該案件進行判決。這一點很重要,因為有許多美國執業專利律師 認為USPTO無權作此判決(即使在法條上是明確地如此規範)。聯邦巡迴法院認定其對於USPTO的訓令(上級法院基於美國行政程序法,所允許之對於認定美國行政機關濫權的司法救濟方式),可以作為申請人對於USPTO的嚴重濫權行為,所能夠採用之一項可靠的司法手段,但是在本案中則未曾證實有此等嚴重的濫權行為。

第二項重要的判決是,USPTO專利審理暨訴願委員會,在否准將會擴大請求項保護範圍之預定請求項修改內容一事上是正確的,因為法規規定在准予美國專利之後 不允許進行此種修改。

第三項重要的判決是, PTAB 採用最寬廣合理解釋(Broadest Reasonable Interpretation;BRI) 作為請求項解讀之標準一事是正確的。這件事 情很有趣,因為如同筆者在以往的 文章(進入PGR階段對於PTAB的態度所應注意之考量事項)中所探討的,地方法院與其他上級法院都具有比最寬廣合理解釋更為侷限之不同的請求項解釋方式(也就是菲利普標準)。儘管這個案件已經上訴到聯邦巡迴法院,PTAB係被確認已正確地採用最寬廣合理解釋(BRI),而不是菲利普斯標準。這當然並不意味著美國聯邦巡迴法院必需要採用BRI標準,而只代表 PTAB 的運用是正確的(就如同法規所設想的)。

同樣重要的是,要留意其認定 PTAB 在此一程序已正確地運用所有的先前技術,甚至包含了一件未於訴願書中所引用的先前技術。結果,聯邦巡迴法院基本上重申了 PTAB 的判決中,在程序性與實質性課題上之大多數面向。因此,聯邦巡迴法院未來似乎是不太傾向於扭轉 PTAB 的判決。所以專利所有人/對手,顯然應該試著在多方複審(IPR)的聽審會上為其之案件進行辯護,而不是抱持著此一判決,被輕易地翻轉的希望,在聯邦巡迴法院的上訴程序中進行爭取。

 

 
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

 


First decision in Federal Circuit on first IPR decision
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

Recently the Federal Circuit has published its decision on the appeal from the very first IPR decision made under the changes introduced to the USPTO PTAB in light of implementation of the AIA. This first IPR decision was re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC., which report can be found here (The first filed Inter Partes Review (IPR)). The decision went against the applicant in the PTAB (his claims were found obvious in light of prior art) and the decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit.

This is very interesting because the Federal Circuit has made some pronouncements on how this process of appealing decision should apply. The first important decision taken by the Federal Circuit was that the Federal Circuit did not have the right to decide on if the USPTO PTAB had the right to decide the case in the first place, irrespective of its outcome. This is important because there are many US practising attorneys who held the view that the USPTO could not do this (even though the statute seems to explicitly institute it). The court simply decided that mandamus (judicial remedy for higher courts to decide abuse in US administrative agencies allowed under the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act) could be a reliable judicial tool that applicants could use in event of serious USPTO abuse, but such serious abuse had not been proven in this case.

The second important decision was that the USPTO PTAB was right to not allow a proposed claim amendment that would broaden the scope of the claims, as this was not allowed for by statute after grant of the US patent.

The third important decision was that the USPTO PTAB was correct in using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) as claim construction standard. This is interesting because, as has already been discussed in this article (Considerations on the state of PTAB as it enters the era of PGR), the District Courts and other higher courts have a different claim construction which is more limited than BRI (i.e. Phillips standard). Even though this case was appealed to the Federal Circuit, BRI was used in affirming that the PTAB had correctly determined instead of the Phillips standard. This of course does not mean that the Federal Circuit has to adopt the BRI standard, only that the USPTO PTAB was right to use it (as envisaged by statute).

It is also important to note that it was decided that the USPTO PTAB were correct in using all prior art cited during the proceedings, even one not cited in the petition. To conclude, the Federal Circuit has basically reiterated most aspects of both procedure and substantive issue of the USPTO PTAB decision. Thus it would seem that the Federal Circuit is not likely to reverse USPTO PTAB decisions in the future without strong cause. It thus becomes clear that the patent proprietor/opponent should try and fight his case in IPR hearings and not in appeal to the Federal Circuits in the hope of having his decision reversed easily.

 

 
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 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們