IPR請願中利害關係人的討論 - IPR2014-00737討論

提出AIA下多方復審（IPR）的程序中，在提出IPR請願文件中，除了對於要撤銷的案件提出評論與先前技術討論外，隨附的資訊有個要件是明確指出請願人（petitioner）真正利害關係人的身份（real party-in-interest, identify each real party-in-interest for the party）。

§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.

如果IPR請願中刻意忽略真正利害關係人，專利審判與上訴委員會（PTAB）可以拒絕啟始IPR程序（institution）。

IPR2014-00737 (PTAB, Nov. 4, 2014)案例討論（Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC）：

IPR請願者：Samsung Electronics Co.
專利權人：Black Hills Media, LLC
系爭專利：US 8,050,652

在此案例中，PTAB得知此IPR程序中的系爭專利所涉及的ITC案中的賠償方包括"Google"，也就是Google與Samsung兩者有一爭訟的賠償協議，但"Google"卻未列於此IPR案的利害關係人，經專利權人Black Hills提出此爭議，PTAB提出自已的意見：所謂利害關係人就是在此IPR程序中具有行使控制的一方，包括提供資金。

"As the Board explained, whether a non-party is a real party in interest depends on whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding” and “the degree to which a non-party funds, directs and controls the proceeding.”

專利權人於初步回應IPR案時引用「37 C.F.R.§ 42.8(a)(1)」，認為Samsung並未將Google列為真正利害關係人，PTAB應撤銷IPR。

於是PTAB從Samsung與Google雙方的賠償協議中得知，協議並未允許Google控制Samsung的IPR程序，且Google參與Samsung的ITC案僅為一種利益表達（"expression of an interest"），因此PTAB認為此IPR案已經充分指出真正的利害關係人，否決Black Hills的主張。

本案最後雙方和解。

my two cents:
專利權人的專利被提出IPR後，可以探索相關請願人背後是否有藏鏡人，如果確知相關利害關係人是誰，卻未列於IPR案中，比如雙方有訴訟，可以合理提出懷疑，不一定可以賺到撤銷IPR的結果。

資料參考：
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/identifying-real-party-interest-intellectual-property

Ron