2016年6月27日 星期一

優先權失格後的連鎖效應案例討論 - Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., (D. Mass. Mar. 13, 2014)

本案例討論優先權基礎案失格後會造成後續申請案面臨困擾的問題,特別是最早申請案為臨時申請案(provisional application)。


案例:Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., (D. Mass. Mar. 13, 2014)
專利權人/原告:Worlds, Inc.
侵權被告:Activision Blizzard, Inc.
系爭專利:U.S. Nos. 7,181,690 (“‘690”), 7,493,558 (“‘558”), 7,945,856 (“‘856”),
8,082,501 (“‘501”) and 8,145,998 (“‘998”)

緣起,被告經告上法院後,請求專利無效的簡易判決,結果法院簡易判決「專利無效」,關鍵在於優先權。

系爭專利為優先權日早於1995年的虛擬實境技術,以下列舉幾件,這些專利皆屬於一個家族,除了'690案,其他皆溯及1995年的臨時申請案(60/020296),而正式案則是溯及臨時案到期前最後一天的1996年母案(08/747420,U.S. Patent No. 6,219,045 (“the ‘045 patent”),但'045案卻未主張臨時案優先權日)。


7,181,690 (“‘690”)

Claim 1關於一個方法,可以讓使用者與其他使用者以虛擬的人(avatar)在虛擬空間互動,在每個終端裝置上接收各使用者虛擬人的位置,並判斷而顯示在自己的裝置上。
1. A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, wherein the first user and the other users each have an avatar and a client process associated therewith, and wherein each client process is in communication with a server process, wherein the method comprises:
(a) receiving a position of less than all of the other users' avatars from the server process; and
(b) determining, from the received positions, a set of the other users' avatars that are to be displayed to the first user,
wherein steps (a) and (b) are performed by the client process associated with the first user.
7,493,558 (“‘558”)
Claim 4關於儲存程式的機器可讀取媒體,相關程式讓使用者可以在虛擬空間內互動,程式功能包括監視每個客戶端程序、客戶端程序與伺服器端程序傳輸、接收到伺服器程序,包括得到其他使用者位置,以及判斷並顯示每個人的位置在自己的裝置。
4. A machine-readable medium having a program stored in the medium, the program enabling a plurality of users to interact in a virtual space, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with a different client process on a different computer, wherein each client process has an avatar associated with said each client process, and wherein said each client process is configured for communication with a server process, wherein the program comprises instructions for:
(a) monitoring, by said each client process, a position of the avatar associated with said each client process;
(b) transmitting, by said each client process to the server process, the position of the avatar associated with said each client process;
(c) receiving, by said each client process from the server process, the positions of avatars in a set associated with said each client process, wherein the set associated with said each client process does not include at least one avatar of the avatars associated with the client processes of the plurality of users, the at least one avatar not being associated with said each client process; and
(d) determining from the positions received in step (C), by said each client process, avatars that are to be displayed to the user associated with said each client process.

7,945,856 (“‘856”)

Claim 1也是關於多人在虛擬空間互動的方法。
1. A method for enabling a first user to interact with second users in a virtual space, wherein the first user is associated with at first avatar and a first client process, the first client process being configured for communication with a server process, and each second user is associated with a different second avatar and a second client process configured for communication with the server process, at least one second client process per second user, the method comprising:
(a) receiving by the first client process from the server process received positions of selected second avatars; and
(b) determining, from the received positions, a set of the second avatars that are to be displayed to the first user;
wherein the first client process receives positions of fewer than all of the second avatars.

根據以上系爭專利的優先權資訊來看,除了'690外,其餘主張侵權的系爭專利都溯及1995年的臨時申請案(60/020296),以及1996年母案(08/747420,獲准為US 6,219,045),'690案並未主張1995年優先權,以及這件1996年正式案母案'045也未主張1995年優先權。

法院列出被告所繪製的各系爭專利在此家族"斷鏈"的優先權關係:


其實,選擇是否採用臨時申請案優先權日的決定仍在於申請人,不是多麼特別的事,只是,如果申請人忽略自己產品上市時間可能就在這些爭議期間內,就可能導致一連串專利失效的問題。本案中原告Worlds Inc.在1995年公開兩個軟體產品:Worlds Chat與Alpha World,這兩件產品正是系爭專利「虛擬聊天室」的技術,而且軟體證實已公開在以上各系爭專利主張優先權的正式案母案'045申請日前超過一年

根據美國專利法102(b)(舊制)規定,提供在專利申請前一年已公開的優惠期,對於此案來說,專利是否有溯及1995年臨時申請案成為關鍵,特別是早於1996年的母案適用2000年以前專利法規定:


結果,在當年專利法規定,當專利並未在專利中交代其優先權關聯,或是在ADS表示,無法主張相關優先權。


雖然有部分系爭專利有揭示與最早臨時申請案的關聯,不過由於「整個家族」都是繫屬這個最早母案'045,使得當此母案與最早臨時申請案「斷鏈」時,全部優先權主張都失格。這個決定乍看有些問題,不過,法院的描述就頗具說服力,理由是,雖然有些系爭專利有揭示與最早臨時案的關聯,但是這些後續案申請日都並未在最早臨時案提出後一年內,也無法直接主張最早臨時案優先權日

"None of these patents were filed “within 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed” and thus cannot claim the Provisional Application’s priority date under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)."

以下就是地方法院的決定:


但,如果專利權人提出修正(誤繕)呢?法院認為,法院不能去修正專利的錯誤,特別是基於過去明顯的行政上的失誤。
"Absent evidence of culpability or intent to deceive by delaying formal correction, a patent should not be invalidated based on an obvious administrative error."

而且,法院認為專利權人訴求USPTO作出修正確認,也不會改變法院的無效認定。


即便專利權人Worlds Inc.主張在系爭專利過程中已經提到上述臨時申請案,但是卻未透過修正或是補足ADS的要求滿足規定,因此被判為專利範圍主張技術因為申請前超過一年已公開,專利無效

在美國專利法第282條「專利有效假定」的規定中,如果要證明專利無效,要提出清楚且有說服力的證據。以上時間點就是有力的證據

35 U.S.C. 282    PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY; DEFENSES.

  • (a) IN GENERAL.—A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.
  • ...

但是有個「轉折」,使得本案可能在日後會有不同的變化。


my two cents:
本案,在法院作出的意見中,似乎還是讓專利權人看到了曙光,只要將這個「明顯失誤」的錯誤更正過來,或許就可以重新主張專利侵權,只是本案走到這樣,法院(司法系統)不能更正USPTO(行政系統)的錯誤

本案例討論優先權基礎案失格後會造成後續申請案面臨困擾的問題,這個問題同樣也可能發生在優先權案為正式申請案(non-provisional application)的情況。

臨時申請案因為可以早期取得申請日的好處而被廣為應用,特別是在AIA法案後僅考量有效申請日的改革,使得臨時申請案更被重視。但是,除了文件需要備外,臨時案常常也是最常被忽略其中揭露是否完整的申請案,補救措施如:臨時案能更完整就盡量完整,能夠圖文並茂,就盡量提出;要不然,建議可以多件臨時申請案互補彼此揭露的問題,正式案就主張複數優先權。

臨時申請案(provisional application)因為僅須符合「可據以實施(35U.S.C.112)」的基本揭露規定,連同圖示、文字,在沒有嚴格格式要求下可以快速取得最早申請日,成為申請人專利佈局時的重要策略之一,甚至可知許多企業都在早期用多件臨時案佈局,之後才以一或多件正式申請案(non-provisional application)提出申請,主張申請前一年內的多件臨時案優先權,甚至繼續追加CA、DIV、CIP案等。

不過...,如果臨時案失格,例如不符合揭露規定而失去成為優先權基礎案的資格時,後續正式專利申請案除了會少掉最多一年的優先權日的審查基準日好處外,更可能面臨自己揭露內容阻礙後續申請案新穎性的疑慮。

判決文:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2012cv10576/143034/124
(pdf: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2012cv10576/143034/124/0.pdf?ts=1394793636

參考資料:
http://www.finnegan.com/zh-CHT/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=689ecbad-2c0b-48fe-ac09-87bdee3ae0cb

Ron

沒有留言: