地方法院無權審理PTAB作出的CBM啟始決定

本篇名稱為：地方法院無權審理PTAB作出CBM啟始決定的反對意見，看來頗為複雜，但是簡單來說，這是一個CAFC決定，認為當PTAB對於CBM（covered business method review）無效異議作出啟始決定（Institution Decision）時，即便有反對意見，地方法院無權插手。

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, USPTO（CAFC 2015）

案件資訊：

（這個過程很重要）
案件緣起於東維吉尼亞地方法院對於Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.侵權訴訟的判決，侵權成立，並判決賠償，之後上訴CAFC（"Versata I"），確認侵權，但撤回過廣的禁制令（2013年），因此發回重審。訴訟期間，被告SAP對系爭專利提出CBM（covered business method）程序（2013年），PTAB同意啟始CBM程序（institution of CBM review）。

這時，原告Versata在同一地方法院對USPTO提告，要求應該擱置CBM審查，被告SAP也參一腳，提出反對請求（motion），地院站在被告這方，也同意USPTO的motion，因此撤銷原告對USPTO的告訴，理由是沒有司法管轄權（"lack of subject matter jurisdiction"）！也就是地方法院無權撤銷USPTO對於啟始系爭專利CBM審查的決定。

但原告Versata仍保留對此決定上訴CAFC的權利，不二話，就上訴CAFC（"Versata II"）。

本次CAFC決定：

系爭專利：US 6,553,350
決定日期：July 13, 2015

首先，CAFC認為地方法院正確地以"法律問題（as a matter of law）"來撤銷原告的告訴，也就是確認因為地院沒有司法管轄權而撤銷原告告訴的決定，如以上截圖中提到AIA的聲明，主要是針對法條引用與解釋，兩者結論是一致的。

CAFC結論（Versata II）是同意地方法院對於的決定：地方法院無權撤銷USPTO對於啟始系爭專利CBM審查的決定。

參考法條，如以下subsection 324(e)：（PGR原本的設計就是制衡專利權人在法院的侵權訴訟）

35 U.S.C. 324. INSTITUTION OF POST-GRANT REVIEW

(a) THRESHOLD.--The Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.

(b) ADDITIONAL GROUNDS.--The determination required under subsection (a) may also be satisfied by a showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications.

(c) TIMING.--The Director shall determine whether to institute a post-grant review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 321 within 3 months after--

(1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under section 323; or

(2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date on which such response may be filed.

(d) NOTICE.--The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent owner, in writing, of the Director's determination under subsection (a) or (b), and shall make such notice available to the public as soon as is practicable. Such notice shall include the date on which the review shall commence.

(e) NO APPEAL.--The determination by the Director whether to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.

CAFC決定：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1145.Opinion.7-10-2015.1.PDF
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1145.Opinion.7-10-2015.1.PDF
（更新連結, updated on Dec. 25, 2015）

備份：https://app.box.com/s/0oof59rwzb4gvqqpoxt67v3nun0gnkxk

Ron