MPEP 2300 Interference Proceedings (牴觸程序)

根據美國專利法，不同專利申請案之間可能會產生牴觸/衝突（interference）(updated on Mar. 1, 2017)，其中可能是涉及專利法第135(a)條所規範的申請人調查程序（或說派生程序、歷程調查程序），也就是透過這個程序去判斷誰先發明了兩件專利申請案共同主張權利的發明。
（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/09/derivation-proceeding.html）

提出一個牴觸程序，常是專利申請案由審查委員判斷與另一專利申請案有牴觸，雖然兩案之間應有前後申請日的區別，然而在美國專利舊法中需要判斷誰先發明的規定中，即便是後申請案的申請人（包括再領證案的申請人），仍可以提出與另一件申請案的牴觸程序，要件有：
申請案的足夠資訊
牴觸的申請專利範圍，以及相關議題
提供Claim Chart比對申請案之間的牴觸範圍
申請人應細節解釋為何他應該取得優先的權利（priority）
利用Claim Chart比對新增或修正範圍與說明書內容
證明申請人為完成該發明的人（reduction to practice）

(1)Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference,
(2)Identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, propose one or more counts, and show how the claims correspond to one or more counts,
(3)For each count, provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding to the count and show why the claims interfere within the meaning of § 41.203(a),
(4)Explain in detail why the applicant will prevail on priority,
(5)If a claim has been added or amended to provoke an interference, provide a claim chart showing the written description for each claim in the applicant's specification, and
(6)For each constructive reduction to practice for which the applicant wishes to be accorded benefit, provide a chart showing where the disclosure provides a constructive reduction to practice within the scope of the interfering subject matter.

基於上述啟動牴觸程序的準備之後，審查委員可提出相關文件至BPAI（專利上訴與衝突/牴觸委員會，現稱PTAB），BPAI將作出在此牴觸程序中擁有優先權利與可專利性的決定。
一旦牴觸程序啟動，審查委員將會等待BPAI作出決定後，再行審理。其中，勝方（具有先發明的權利）的專利申請案若有可核准範圍，申請案將被獲准；敗方提出的範圍將不會被核准。

不過，在美國專利新法中仍有Derivation Proceedings可以讓申請人提出誰應是first inventor的請願程序，提出的時間限制為先申請案公開後一年內。



誰應取得專利的爭議法條可參考：
(AIA) 35 U.S.C. 135 Derivation proceedings
(a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.--An applicant for patent may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1–year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding. The determination by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable.


(Pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1)
during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

MPEP 2300的許多規範將於日後繼續研究！
Ron