再審程序中的"舉證"爭議（涉及IPR,PGR）

2009年Cordis Corp.這間一醫療設備與服務廠商（按照它的網站介紹，產品有藥物洗脫支架，導管，導絲和腔靜脈濾器這些看不懂的器材）對Abbott Labs這間醫療服務的公司提出侵權告訴，這兩間看來同質性很高的公司顯然是個競爭的關係。

vs.

涉及的專利是Cordis Corp.擁有的US6,746,773與US7,591,844。提出告訴的同時，被告Abbott Labs對USPTO提出Inter Partes Reexamination再審程序。

這個訴訟與再審程序有些值得一題的過程：

1. 當Cordis Corp.對Abbott Labs提出告訴(Virginia法院），Abbot Labs對兩件系爭專利提出美國無效程序（再審，inter partes reexamination)；
2. 在再審程序中，首先，USPTO審查委員作出US7,591,844全部範圍不具專利性，使得Cordis Corp.必須以次要考量（secondary consideration）作出答辯，也就是宣稱所載發明已經獲得市場上的成功，甚至包括被告Abbott Labs的疑似侵權物；
3. Abbott Labs於是作出回應，並提出專家證詞；審查委員則再次發出核駁意見，理由是審查委員發現被告侵權物在該專利獲准前已經存在在一般市面，而原告Cordis Corp.卻未能提出專利所載的發明與被告侵權物所獲得的商業上的成功（commercial success）與業界好評（industry praise）間的關聯，Cordis Corp.並未能提出有效與被告侵權物的關聯；於是Cordis Corp.提出訴願（程序進入PTAB）；
4. 對於另一專利權US6,746,773，另一審查委員也作出該專利的全部範圍無效的意見，攻守雙方仍同時提出意見，但此次意見被延宕，原因是US7,591,844這件正進入訴願階段；
5. 場景回到法院，地方法院要求Cordis Corp.與Abbott Labs雙方提出證據（duces tecum），就Cordis Corp.來看，這個程序有助於證明專利權與被告侵權物的關聯，也能證明前述次要考量答辯的力道（因為Abbott Labs被告產品的成功）；
6. 因為上述幾個PTO的決定與法院要求的文件證據都涉及商業成功的"舉證"這件事，於是Cordis Corp.要求專利局澄清在美國專利法第24條所定義的"舉證"的規定；
7. PTO並未接受Cordis Corp.的要求，理由是Inter Partes Reexamination並不適用第24條所規定的舉證，PTO認為再審程序僅根據專利審查，並沒有涉及「蒐證（discovery）」，不符第24條所規定的"contested cases"條件；
8. 最後上訴到CAFC，結論是針對美國專利法第24條，認為第24條僅授權地方法院在PTO要求證據時發出傳票，因此不適用在再審程序中。

法院結論：

CONCLUSION

We hold that 35 U.S.C. §24 only empowers a district

court to issue subpoenas for use in a proceeding before the

PTO if the PTO’s regulations authorize parties to take

depositions for use in that proceeding. We therefore hold

that section 24 subpoenas are not available in inter partes

reexamination proceedings.

AFFIRMED

[原24條文]
35 U.S.C. 24 Subpoenas, witnesses.

The clerk of any United States court for the district wherein testimony is to be taken for use in any contested case in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall, upon the application of any party thereto, issue a subpoena for any witness residing or being within such district, commanding him to appear and testify before an officer in such district authorized to take depositions and affidavits, at the time and place stated in the subpoena. The provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the attendance of witnesses and to the production of documents and things shall apply to contested cases in the Patent and Trademark Office.

Every witness subpoenaed and in attendance shall be allowed the fees and traveling expenses allowed to witnesses attending the United States district courts.

A judge of a court whose clerk issued a subpoena may enforce obedience to the process or punish disobedience as in other like cases, on proof that a witness, served with such subpoena, neglected or refused to appear or to testify. No witness shall be deemed guilty of contempt for disobeying such subpoena unless his fees and traveling expenses in going to, and returning from, and one day's attendance at the place of examination, are paid or tendered him at the time of the service of the subpoena; nor for refusing to disclose any secret matter except upon appropriate order of the court which issued the subpoena.

 Patently-O對此案例作出衍生性的判斷，因為在AIA法案實施後，PGR（Post Grant Review）與取代原來Inter Partes Reexamination的美國專利異議新制IPR（Inter Partes Review）都是專利獲准後的無效程序，不同於上述CAFC的決定，在這些程序中都被授予蒐證與證詞（discovery and testimony）的權利，因此相關案件也都視為"contested cases"，將考量第三方證詞。但PTO仍不會接受未經PTAB授權而由聯邦法院發出的傳票。

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O
判決文：http://www.finnegan.com/files/Publication/e31e4cbc-1a94-4690-b2be-aead3b2714b5/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/a51e51ad-98e7-400b-a989-b0c1cc717520/12-1244%203-20-13.pdf