enpan's Patent & Linux practice: 一個基於訴訟的IPR案例討論

2014年5月27日星期二

一個基於訴訟的IPR案例討論 - 專利無效程序的邏輯

Unwired Planet是個專利授權公司，擁有上千件專利，2012年曾對Google提出侵權告訴，也就是這篇IPR（IPR2014-00027）的起因。Unwired Planet日前更對Samsung、Google、Huawei、HTC等公司提出侵權告訴，而這幾個公司在這訴訟的共通點主要是技術都源自過去Ericsson的無線網路技術授權。

案例IPR2014-00027 （請願人：Google）
系爭專利：US7463151

從IPR本文目錄可以看出整個IPR的邏輯，主要順序如：

請願法條（37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)、37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)）
請願背景
系爭專利介紹
爭議整理
系爭申請專利範圍
權利範圍中的名詞解釋
先前技術介紹
無效理由
強制性命令（37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)）

補充：
§42.22 Content of petitions and motions. （請願的內容）
(a) Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include:
(1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and
(2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.
(b) Relief requested. Where a rule in part 1 of this title ordinarily governs the relief sought, the petition or motion must make any showings required under that rule in addition to any showings required in this part.
(c) Statement of material facts. Each petition or motion may include a statement of material fact. Each material fact preferably shall be set forth as a separately numbered sentence with specific citations to the portions of the record that support the fact.
(d) The Board may order additional showings or explanations as a condition for authorizing a motion (see§42.20(b)).

§42.104 Content of petition.（請願的內容）
In addition to the requirements of §§42.6, 42.8, 42.22, and 42.24, the petition must set forth:
(a) Grounds for standing. The petitioner must certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for inter partes review and that the petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition.
(b) Identification of challenge. Provide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged. The statement must identify the following:
(1) The claim;
(2) The specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground;
(3) How the challenged claim is to be construed. Where the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function;
(4) How the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and
(5) The exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge. The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.
(c) A motion may be filed that seeks to correct a clerical or typographical mistake in the petition. The grant of such a motion does not change the filing date of the petition.

§42.8 Mandatory notices. （強制性通知）
(a) Each notice listed in paragraph (b) of this section must be filed with the Board:
(1) By the petitioner, as part of the petition;
(2) By the patent owner, or applicant in the case of derivation, within 21 days of service of the petition; or
(3) By either party, within 21 days of a change of the information listed in paragraph (b) of this section stated in an earlier paper.
(b) Each of the following notices must be filed:
(1) Real party-in-interest. Identify each real party-in-interest for the party.
(2) Related matters. Identify any other judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding.
(3) Lead and back-up counsel. If the party is represented by counsel, then counsel must be identified.
(4) Service information. Identify (if applicable):
(i) An electronic mail address;
(ii) A postal mailing address;
(iii) A hand-delivery address, if different than the postal mailing address;
(iv) A telephone number; and
(v) A facsimile number.

在請願書本文中，照著上述整個論述的邏輯進行，包括前言，描述請願人與現在正在訴訟的情況：

系爭專利US7463151揭露一種利用短距離通訊技術提供行動服務的技術，就是一種在一個小範圍內的無線認證技術，這樣就會想到RFID, NFC等技術，系統提供的伺服器，可以將短距離內的認證資訊與外部伺服器確認驗證，這樣驗證行動裝置後，比如就可以加入特定小範圍內的無線影音服務。

短距離交換驗證資料：

在引用先前技術之前，認為以上系爭專利所主張的發明在發明完成之前已經存在有先前技術，同時提出12個無效理由。
Summary of Argument
First, this petition discusses the claims for review and proposes terms for construction. Second, this petition lists the cited references and shows that each reference is prior art to the ’151 patent. Third, the petition proposes 12 different grounds of unpatentability. Fourth and finally, the petition provides mandatory notices required by the rules of practice.

接著是對每個專利範圍提出描述，準確定義出每個技術用語，引用前案包括五件專利以及幾篇公開文獻，接著針對系爭專利不具102, 103等議題來論述（註：文中雖有提到101, 112等法條，但因為IPR不適用101, 112無效理由，因此Google也沒有提）。