在過去，第三方呈報先前技藝（Third Party Submissions）在美國及其他地區的使用率並不高，至於在歐洲，也是僅有不到1%的申請案有採用此一手段來攻擊對手之專利。儘管其採用率是如此的低，但歐洲地區的報導也顯示了有超過50%的審查委員在訴訟時引用第三方呈報先前技藝的舉報，而且發現有超過14%的舉報導致了對手專利範圍減縮或是被拒絕授證。

最近，美國專利法歷經重大改革 (以下將詳細描述) ，試圖鼓勵更多人採用第三方呈報先前技藝之舉報服務。美國專利商標局 (USPTO) 認為第三方呈報先前技藝「提供了更充分、範圍更全面的材料，讓審查委員可以重新審視及判定一件專利申請案的新穎性。」有人指出：「此一新機制將有助於確保真正具新穎性、利用性、及非顯而易見的創意能獲得其應有的智慧財產權保護。」USPTO副局長於2013年1月24日提交給先進專利法研討會（Advanced Patent Law Institute）的統計數據顯示，在新法上路之後，已接獲超過300件第三方呈報先前技藝的舉報案。這些第三方呈報的先前技藝包羅萬象，技術領域橫跨多個USPTO技術中心，包括生技、化學、材料、電腦架構及軟體、電腦網路及安全、半導體及電路、交通運輸及營造、和機械工程等。這些統計數據顯示在第三方呈報的先前技藝中，所提出的參考文件涵蓋了約400件專利、150件專利申請案、150份國外參考專利案及400份非專利的相關文獻。

然而，最新的美國專利法對第三方可呈報先前技藝的時間仍有限制。因此，當提出呈報的第三方被排除於持續進行的申請案審核過程之外時，目標申請案的擁有人仍然可以隨時與美國的審查委員溝通，以克服被呈報的先前技藝參考資料。因此，如果第三方呈報的結果並沒有造成目標專利的權利範圍縮減（這同時也降低了他人侵權的可能），這時候第三方的呈報先前技藝，可能反而會加強了對手專利範圍的強度，使得該專利爾後更難以使之無效。再者，如果在第三方呈報中 (雖然其呈報是可以匿名的)，若留有線索使可能的專利權人得知呈報人的真實身份，則可能會讓呈報者成為爾後訴訟的目標。

儘管有一些缺點，美國專利法針對第三方呈報做了1項調整，就是將第三方可以提出呈報的期限延長了。雖然提報先前技藝的期間仍須以於「專利核准通知」(Notice of Allowance) 前提出為前提，現延長於申請案公開後6個月內，或第一次實質核駁通知前，這兩者中之較後者。在舊法的時期，第三方呈報必須要在申請案公開前即進行，這讓第三方呈報人甚至很難知悉申請案之專利範圍究竟為何。

美國專利法有關第三方呈報的第2項調整是第三方可以呈報一份「關聯性精簡敘述」（concise description of relevance），以向審查委員解釋呈報的參考資料對目標申請案中的專利範圍的決定有多重要。而舊法並不允許遞交此「關聯性精簡敘述」。

此外，「關聯性精簡敘述」並沒有長度的限制。USPTO在聲明中指出「關聯性精簡敘述的解釋需求是自由無限制的，因為官方預期第三方有足夠的誘因去提供完整的關聯性精簡敘述，來吸引審查委員注意其所呈報之文件與審查之申請案之間的潛在相關性。」被呈報的文件可以是一件專利、專利申請案，或是非專利的文獻。該「敘述」不可以「建議」駁回，也不可以包含可專利與否之爭辯，或是提出一個或多個請求項是否可授予專利的結論。

呈報的文件並不一定會被採用。當欲呈報的文件可以保留以備未來訴訟抗辯之用時，那呈報一個人「最好」的參考資料可能是件愚蠢的事。這是因為第三方所呈報的先前技藝有可能會強化最後獲證的專利，尤其是當此新呈報的先前技藝被申請人成功克服時。一個選擇是讓第三方呈報人考慮呈報已存在記錄中的先前技藝之「關聯性精簡敘述」，而這些已知的先前技藝是可能的專利權人為了取得專利本來就必須克服的。

針對記錄中已有國際檢索報告（International Search Report）的申請案，該報告也許可以成為第三方呈報者相當好的參考資料。但由於該檢索報告很精簡，因此美國審查委員通常可能不會覺得這些參考資料很重要。此外，當國際檢索報告中的參考資料不是英文資料時，美國審查委員通常都會仰賴機器翻譯或是只看其英文摘要，而很可能會得到不正確的資訊且不易於閱讀。所以，如果真的希望可以在專利核准前縮減對方的專利範圍，第三方呈報人就應該提供審查委員正確的翻譯結果及關聯性精簡敘述。

對於美國的專利申請連續案或是分割案，申請人可能是試圖尋求比母案更寬廣的保護。而審查委員在母案的審查程序中，可能會忽略或是誤解了其參考資料中特別相關的一部分。因此，「關聯性精簡敘述」可以精準的將審查委員的注意力吸引到特定相關材料上，結果是不僅可縮減原較寬廣的專利範圍，也同時能強迫申請人承認先前技藝的存在，並予以比較。如此一來，如果一旦進行訴訟，這會對第三方是有利的。

然而，由於以上提到的一些缺陷，是否以第三方提出先前技藝的呈報，並不是一個顯而易見的決定。相對來說，如果決定是要以第三方提出先前技藝呈報，則建議你與你的美國法律顧問共同評估以第三方提出先前技藝呈報的優點；最後，也建議你選擇與熟悉USPTO審查作業的美國法律顧問合作，使所呈報的先前技藝的方式可以讓審查委員能快速分辨出相關的呈報文件，及容易「採用」相關文件作為第一次官方核駁的材料。

Third Party Submissions in U.S. Applications
By Dr. Ronald Rudder

Third party submissions in the past have not been frequently used in the U.S. or elsewhere.  In Europe, reports are that less than 1% of applications have had observations filed.  Despite the low use, reports from Europe do indicate that over 50% of examiners made use of the observations in prosecution, with over 14% finding that the observations resulted in a major reduction in scope or refusal. 

Recently, changes in U.S. law (discussed below) are intended to encourage more third party submissions.  The USPTO considers third party submissions to be a valuable tool.  The USPTO has noted that third party submissions “provide a fuller, more exhaustive scope of materials for examiners to review in determining the novelty of a given application.”  It has noted that “this new mechanism will help ensure that truly novel, useful, and non-obvious innovations obtain the intellectual property protection they deserve.”  Statistics given on January 24, 2013 by the Deputy Director of the USPTO to the Advanced Patent Law Institute  show that there have been over 300 third party submissions under the new law.  The submissions have been made across a wide variety of technology centers in the USPTO including centers for biotechnology, chemical and materials engineering, computer architecture and software, computer networking and security, semiconductor and electrical systems, transportation and construction, and mechanical engineering.  Those statistics show that the submitted documents referenced in the third party submissions included about 400 patents, 150 patent applications, 150 foreign references, and 400 non-patent literature references. 

However, current U.S. law still limits the time when a third party submitter can make a submission.  Thus, the owner of the target application is free to negotiate with the U.S. examiner and overcome the submitted reference or references, while the third party submitter is barred from participation in the ongoing prosecution.  Accordingly, if the third party submission does not result in a claim scope reduction which minimizes your risk of infringement, the third party submission may only have served to strengthen the resultant patent by making it harder to invalidate.  Moreover, if something in the third party submission (although filed anonymously) clues the potential patentee as to your identity, you have probably made yourself a target for litigation.

Regardless of these disadvantages, the first change in U.S. law regarding third party submissions is that the time window for filing a third party submission has been extended.  Barring a Notice of Allowance, the time window for filing a third party submission extends until the latter of six (6) months after publication of the target application or a first Office Action on the merits.  Under the old law, third party submissions had to be filed before publication of the application, making it difficult for a third party submitter to even know what subject matter was being claimed.

The second change in U.S. law related to third party submissions is that a “concise statement of relevance” can now be submitted explaining to the examiner the significance of the reference to the claims in the target application.  The old law did not permit the filing of a statement of relevance.

There are no limits on the length of the concise statement of relevance.  The USPTO has stated that it is “interpreting the requirement for a concise description of relevance liberally because the Office anticipates third parties will be motivated to provide complete concise descriptions of relevance to draw the examiner's attention to the potential relevance of a submitted document to the examination of an application.”  The submitted document (or documents) can be a patent, a patent application, or a non-patent publication.  The statement can not “propose” rejections.   The statement can not include arguments against patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more claims are patentable.

The submitted document(s) may or may not be of record.  Submitting one’s “best” reference may be ill-advised when it could be saved for a future defense in litigation.  Given the possibility that a third party submission could strengthen the resultant patent, especially if new art is submitted and overcome, one option would be for a third party submitter to consider filing statements of relevance directed references already of record, which the potential patentee will already have had to overcome in order to get a patent. 

For applications containing on the record an International Search Report, the International Search Report may provide excellent references for a third party submission.  Because of the brevity of the Search Report, the U.S. examiner may not completely appreciate the significance of the references.  Furthermore, when the references in the International Search Report are not in English, U.S. examiners typically rely on machine translations or English abstracts, which can be inaccurate and difficult to read.  An accurate English translation and a statement of relevance provided to the examiner may well result in the applicant having to narrow her claims before allowance.

For continuation or divisional applications in the United States, the applicant may be seeking broader protection than she obtained from the parent application.  The examiner during prosecution of the parent application may have overlooked or misunderstood a particularly relevant part of one of the references.  A statement of relevance precisely drawing the examiner's attention to the relevant material may not only result in a narrowing of the broad claims, but may also force the applicant to make admissions and comparisons to the prior art, which could be favorable to the third party submitter if sued.

However, the decision to submit a third party submission is not a clear cut decision because of the pitfalls noted above.  Accordingly, parties seeking to file a third party submission are advised to work with U.S. counsel for an evaluation of the relative merits of filing a third party submission.  Finally, parties seeking to file a third party submission are advised to work with U.S. counsel familiar with examination practice in the USPTO so that the filed submissions are in a form where the examiners will quickly recognize the relevance of the submitted document(s) and can easily “adopt” the materials for a first Office Action rejection. 

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團