自從美國專利商標局專利審判暨上訴委員會（PTAB），承接屬於傳統商業方法（CBM）與多方複審程序（IPR）之美國專利案件的審理以後，時間已經經過2年。在這2年之中，PTAB已經對於如何進行運作，設定了一些備受爭議的原則。

在這些原則中，首先就是PTAB應該要適用哪種請求項解讀方式。請求項的解讀，對於確認所請發明的範圍來說是非常重要的，且對於先前技術是否會對其造成影響也很重要。一般來說，在美國專利商標局的審查過程中，美國審查委員應當採用最寬廣合理解釋（BRI）之標準。PTAB決定採用同樣的BRI標準來解讀請求項，而不是地方法院所採用之被引述為「菲利普標準」（源自於聯邦巡迴法院案例-Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)）的解讀方式。

菲利普標準應該適用於已經被推定為具備專利有效性（也就是已獲准）之請求項上。這代表著該請求項本身不能被解讀成存在有不明確性，因為如此就會使得該請求項無效。然而根據BRI標準，儘管這樣的不明確性可能會使得請求項無效，其仍然應該被納入請求項之範圍內來加以考量，因為這種標準就是要求應以最寬廣的合理解釋來解讀。聯邦巡迴法院不斷指明，BRI標準的範圍應該總是要大於或等於菲利普標準。相較於以地方法院之菲利普標準來進行解讀的情況，這可能會因為請求項係基於BRI標準來進行評斷，反而導致被PTAB認定為不具可准專利性。
這些情況可以概要地以下圖示來說明：

為什麼在美國專利商標局的審查委員係採用相同標準時，將會造成問題呢？其可能會對專利權擁有人造成影響的原因在於，IPR給予對手機會來提出新的先前技術–以前並未提供給專利申請人之先前技術，而因此其將會是首次被納入考量的資料。

這將會衍生出PTAB所採行的第二個具有爭議性之原則。PTAB似乎並不願意允許對請求項進行修正，以使其等可以再次具有可准專利性。這可能是比其他因素更合邏輯之理由–PTAB負有在啟動程序之後的12個月（也可能是18個月）內，獲得結論之法定義務，而允許進行修改可能會對於如何滿足此一緊迫期限造成影響。此外，在IPR程序中，PTAB只被允許基於可准專利性（新穎性（USC35＃102）與顯而易見性（USC35＃103）），來核駁專利申請案。因此，進行任何的修改都可能會導致任何與新增之標的有關，或是與任何基於USC35＃112的其他課題有關之討論內容，這可能會導致PTAB逾越其在IPR程序中之職權範圍。在RIM v. MobileMedia Ideas, IPR2013-00036 一案中，PTAB決定其必須依職權（基於其本身的權責）來終止該程序，因為其係為與處理USC35＃112與USC35＃103/102有關的問題。

第三項有趣的課題是，PTAB呈現出統計上顯著之次數，不願意接受美國專利商標局審查委員，在先前的審查歷史中所採用之BRI標準。這就是最近出現在Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures, IPR2014-00317 一案中的情況，其中PTAB在複審程序中並不同意審查委員的意見，並將「一記憶體」解釋為「一個或更多的記憶體」，這意味著該專利會被先前技術所預見，而PTAB因此在IPR程序中，做出不利於申請人的判決。

雖然上述課題看起來像是屬於IPR程序結構中之合理主張，但是必須要記住的是，同一個「法庭」將會開始把相同的原則，適用至美國發明法(AIA)中所界定之先發明人申請制（FITF）專利的核准後複審(PGR)程序上。最近有兩件對於美國FITF專利所提出之PGR程序中，PGR程序與IPR程序並不相同，其允許第三方來挑戰專利的有效性–而進行這些挑戰的基礎，包括了新穎性、顯而易見性、書面描述內容、可據以實現性、不明確性、產業利用性、以及專利適格性。

基於上述之課題，特別是在與上述之PTAB所採用之原則結合下，PGR顯然將會成為一項非常強大之可以攻擊美國專利的工具。PTAB係採用BRI原則而相對於第三方所引用之新先前技術來進行解讀，並且可以基於上面所提到的許多理由來進行攻擊，這意味著以PGR程序來進行攻擊，可以具有比IPR程序更高之成功率。PTAB可以檢視PGR程序中之所有理由，比起在IPR程序中所出現之USC35＃112的理由，PTAB更有可能會終止程序，並基於BRI原則而繼續審查直至獲得結論，這將使得PGR程序更為強大。同時，PTAB程序並不會輕易准予進行修正，也比較不會受限於在早期審查過程中，審查委員所做出之認定（但至少會遵循在IPR程序中所作出之認定結果）。

其中一個有趣的面向，就是檢視PTAB將如何處理在PGR程序中，所提出之修正申請。如果他們會基於12/18個月之法定處理時限的限制，而不願意在IPR程序中允許進行修正，那麼任何新的先前技術，都將可以輕易地依據對許多理由來對專利進行致命性攻擊。舉例來說，一般常見一項專利係相對於新先前技術而為顯而易見，或是不能充分地據以實現而不能涵蓋所請範圍，因而係基於USC35＃103或USC35＃112，而被認定為無效。通常進行修正將可以允許專利申請人逃出此種困境，但是在PGR程序下是否可以允許採取這種選擇仍然並不清楚。如果PGR因而被視為攻擊專利的最佳手段，那麼PTAB屆時便可能會被大量的案例所淹沒，然後就可能會對法定處理時限構成影響，進而使得允許修改的可能性變得更小。這將會提高採用PGR來攻擊專利的吸引力，並因而提高了PGR案件的數量，並因而在美國專利的系統內導致自我延續與自我增進之機制。

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

Considerations on the state of PTAB as it enters the era of PGR
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

It has now been 2 years since the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been deciding on US patent cases in Conventional Business Methods (CBM) and Inter-Partes Review (IPR) cases. Within these 2 years, the PTAB has set some principles in how it works that have been much debated.

The first of these principles is what type of claim construction should be applied by the PTAB. Claim construction is crucial to determining what the scope of the claimed invention is, and therefore also if the prior art affects it or not. Normally, during USPTO prosecution, the US Examiner should adopt the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard. The PTAB has consistently decided to employ the same BRI standard for claim construction, as opposed to the construction used by District Courts which is frequently cited as the Phillips standard (from Fed. Circuit case Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

The Phillips standard should be used for claims that have the presumption of validity (i.e. when granted). This means it is not possible to interpret an ambiguity in a claim so that it would make the claim invalid. Under the BRI standard, such an ambiguity should be considered within the scope of the claim, even though it would render the claim invalid, because the standard requires simply the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Federal Circuit has always stated that the scope of BRI standard should always be larger or equal to the Phillips standard. This could lead to a situation where the claims are found not to be patentable under PTAB (because the claims are judged under the BRI standard), as opposed to if they were interpreted in District Courts under the Phillips standard.

This can be shown schematically here below:

Why could this cause a problem, when the USPTO Examiners use the same standard anyway? The reason it may cause a problem for patent owners is that IPR gives the opponent a new opportunity to present new prior art – prior art which was not previously available to the patent applicant and therefore has to be taken into account for the first time.

This leads us to the second contentious principle by the PTAB. The PTAB seems reluctant to allow amendments to the claims to allow them to be rendered patentable again. This may be more for logistical reasons than anything else – the PTAB have a statutory obligation to reach a decision within 12 months (possibly 18) from issue of proceedings and allowing amendments may cause problems in achieving this tight deadline. Also, the PTAB under IPR is only allowed to reject patents for patentability (novelty (USC35#102) and obviousness (USC35#103)). As a result, any discussion of added subject matter or any other issue under USC35#112, which any proposed amendment could lead to, would cause the PTAB to go beyond its remit in IPR. In RIM v. MobileMedia Ideas, PR2013-00036, the PTAB determined that it had to sua sponte (by its own volition) terminate the proceeding because it was dealing with USC35#112 as well as USC35#102/103.

The third interesting issue is that the PTAB has shown a statistically significant number of times that it is not willing to accept the application of the BRI standard that was previously employed by USPTO Examiners during a patent’s prosecution history. This was recently seen in Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures, IPR2014-00317, where the PTAB disagreed with the Examiner in the reexamination and construed “a memory” to mean “one or more memories”, which meant that the patent was anticipated by the prior art and the PTAB so decided against the applicant in the IPR.

While the above issues may seem reasonable assertions within the strictures of the IPR process, it must be remembered that the same “court” will start applying the same principles to the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for First-Inventor-to-File (FITF) patents as defined in the AIA. Two recent PGR proceedings have been filed against granted US FITF patents. PGR proceedings allow a third party to challenge the validity of a patent on validity grounds than IPR – these include novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, utility, and subject matter eligibility.

Given the above issues, it seems clear that PGR will become a very powerful tool to attack US patents, especially when combined with PTAB principles as have been described above. The application of BRI interpretation by PTAB against new prior art cited by third parties and the fact that it could be attacked for many of the grounds cited above means that there is much more probability that PGR could be successful where IPR was less so. The PTAB can examine all these grounds under PGR means that it is more likely to terminate proceedings and continue under BRI until conclusion (as opposed to if USC35#112 ground arose in IPR), making PGR more powerful. Furthermore, the PTAB does not readily allow amendments and the PTAB does not feel bound by the decision by Examiners during earlier prosecution (at least following decisions taken under IPR).

One interesting aspect will be to see how the PTAB will handle amendments presented during PGR proceedings. If they will be as reluctant to allow them as they are under IPR, because of the same 12/18 month statutory time constrictions, then any new prior art could easily become lethal to a patent under an attack on the many grounds possible. For example, it is quite common for a patent claim to be either obvious in front of new prior art or to be not sufficiently enabled to cover the scope claimed, thus either not valid under USC35#103 or USC35#112. Usually amendments allow the patent applicant to escape such a squeeze, but it is not clear if such option is possible under PGR. If PGR is thus seen as the best means to attack patents, then the PTAB is swamped by a high number of cases and this could then impact the statutory time limits which will make allowing amendments less likely. This will increase the attraction of using PGR to attack patents and thus further increase the number of PGR cases, hence leading to a self-perpetuating and self-promoting mechanism within the US patent system.

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