重複專利(double patenting) i（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/02/double-patenting-i.html）
重複專利(double patenting) ii（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/02/double-patenting-ii.html）
暫時性重複專利核駁-(double patenting) iii（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/03/double-patenting-iii.html）
本次討論源自同事的問題：
- 如果專利申請案遭遇Non-Statutory Double Patenting（非法定重複專利）/obviousness-type double patenting時，如果是「相同申請人」，應該就是提出終權聲明（Terminal Disclaimer）為解決方式，除非有答辯空間。但如果答辯期間，另一涉及重複專利的申請案已經被轉讓給別人，如何解決？
- Double Patenting無效理由關於「新穎性」，不過，在同一申請人下，可不可以利用Non-Statutory Double Patenting作為再審程序（re-examination）中的無效理由？
這個問題的回答見於MPEP 804的某處Examiner Note。
...
If the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) apply to the commonly owned conflicting inventions of different inventive entities or if the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) apply to non-commonly owned inventions subject to a joint research agreement and thereby obviate the rejection(s), double patenting rejection(s) should be made (or maintained) as appropriate. If, however, it is determined that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) do NOT apply because the inventions were not commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the later invention was filed or made, or because the claimed invention did NOT result from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), and there is evidence of record to indicate that a patent or application is prior art against the application being examined, the examiner should make (A) any appropriate double patenting rejection(s), and (B) the appropriate prior art rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 in the application being examined. See the charts in MPEP § 804. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 cannot be obviated solely by filing a terminal disclaimer.
此段描述，不論是否共同擁有，或受到共同研發合同限制的不共同擁有的專利，都可能遭遇重複專利核駁。若非共同擁有，或是讓與到同一人，或是非規範於共同研發合同中，不能適用103(c)排除同人的先前發明的阻礙。此類專利都因此無法以Terminal Disclaimer克服非法定重複專利，而會遭遇102/103核駁理由。
[問題2]的回應：
Double Patenting在不同申請人的情況下，自然是「後申請案」無法專利才是。但前後案為同一申請人時，前案也不見得可以成為後案的無效證據，但卻可能讓前後案都面對「非法定重複專利」的問題，不過這是否可以成為「無效理由」？
根據MPEP 2258的規定，重複專利確實可以成為無效理由，當然這是因為35 U.S.C. 102(b)(e)(g)等規定，如果前後專利因為「不察」而都獲准專利，後案（或說後發明案）理應不具有新穎性。
如果前後專利為「相同發明」，顯然後申請案無法准予專利，若有一些差異，後申請案則面對是否為顯而易見的問題。
但是，若前後「非法定」重複專利案為同一申請人，兩案並非相同發明的情況下，兩者之間又沒有「Terminal Disclaimer」，顯然後申請案有不當延長專利權的疑慮，這仍可以成為提起美國專利再審程序的理由之一。
根據MPEP 2258的規定，再審程序應依據先前技術提出無效理由，但依據1997年聯邦巡迴法院案例，「非法定重複專利」可為無效理由。
MPEP 2258 SCOPE OF EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
...
Typically, substantial new questions of patentability and rejections in a reexamination proceeding are based on “prior art” patents and publications. There are exceptions, however. For example, in In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 43 USPQ2d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Federal Circuit upheld a nonstatutory double patenting rejection in which the patent upon which the rejection was based and the patent under reexamination shared the same effective filing date. See also the discussion as to double patenting in subsection I.D. below. Analogously, a 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2) rejection may be asserted in a reexamination proceeding based on the examples illustrated in the chart below:
以上流程描述一個範例，兩個專利申請案分別申請於1/4/07與2/4/07，前後申請日差一個月，並為相同發明的專利。
情況一是沒有共同受讓人或發明人，這兩件專利「誰為先發明」將成為爭點之一，可以衝突程序（interference）協調。此例顯示後申請案贏得衝突程序，使得先前申請案反而遭遇102(g)/103(a)核駁。
情況二是具有共同授讓人，但是卻為不同的發明實體/發明人（在發明當下並沒有共同擁有權，沒有共同研發合同），授讓人將取得在前的發明。此例顯示後申請案為先前發明者，因此前申請案因為102(g)/103(a)而無效（此有系爭案申請與獲准時間點的適用）。
但此無效理由可透過Terminal Disclaimer克服。
在共同研發合同的狀況下，2004年12月10日公告領證的案子適用，當申請人並未提出Terminal Disclaimer時，不論是否共同擁有、為相同發明實體等，重複專利的無效理由都適用於再審程序中。但仍可以Terminal Disclaimer克服。
[法條參考]
102(g)：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/09/102g.html
35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3):
For purposes of paragraph (2), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2258
...
Double patenting may exist where the patent being reexamined and a patent or application contain conflicting claims and:
- (A) are filed by the same inventive entity;
- (B) are filed by different inventive entities having a common inventor; and/or
- (C) are filed by a common assignee (common ownership); and/or
- (D) result from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3).
A double patenting rejection based on common ownership may be applied if the earlier invention would qualify as prior art for purposes of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.103(a) only under 35 U.S.C. 102(g), or under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in a reexamination proceeding in which the patent under reexamination was granted on or after December 10, 2004; or in a reexamination proceeding in which the application which issued as a patent undergoing reexamination was filed on or after November 29, 1999.
As is the case for an application, a judicially created double patenting rejection (made in a reexamination) can be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). Where a terminal disclaimer is submitted in a reexamination proceeding, form paragraph 14.23.01 should be used if the terminal disclaimer is proper. If the terminal disclaimer is not proper, form paragraph 14.25 should be used, and one or more of the appropriate form paragraphs 14.26 to 14.32 must follow form paragraph 14.25 to indicate why the terminal disclaimer is not accepted. See also MPEP § 1490.
Where the patent under reexamination issued on or after December 10, 2004, a double patenting rejection may be applied (assuming that the patent owner has not already filed the appropriate terminal disclaimer) if:
- (A) the patent under reexamination claims an invention that is not patentably distinct from an invention claimed in a non-commonly owned pending application or issued patent (i.e., not patentably distinct from an invention claimed in a “reference application or patent”);
- (B) the patent being reexamined and the non-commonly owned reference application or patent are by, or on behalf of, parties to a joint research agreement; and
- (C) a statement has been filed under 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(iii) to disqualify the non-commonly owned reference application or patent from being prior art under 35 U.S.C.103(c)(2).
Thus, the patent being reexamined and the subject matter disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c), as amended by the CREATE Act, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of double patenting analysis. Such a double patenting rejection will be made regardless of whether the patent being reexamined and the non-commonly owned reference patent or application have the same or a different inventive entity. This double patenting rejection may be obviated by filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(d). A double patenting rejection may NOT be made on this basis if the patent under reexamination issued before December 10, 2004.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言