案例「T 0736/95 (Fresh ground of opposition) of 9.10.2000」資訊：
專利權人：AMGEN INC.
異議人：Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
系爭專利：EP0108128
相關法條：99(1), 100(a), (b) and (c), 114(1), 102(3) EPC, Rule: 55(c), 66(1) EPC
系爭專利涉及一種人類伽瑪干擾素（一種抗癌物質）的基因序，專利範圍如下：
- [Met⁻¹,des-Cys¹,des-Tyr²,des-Cys³] human gamma interferon.
- A DNA sequence encoding [Met⁻¹,des-Cys¹,des-Tyr²,des-Cys³] human gamma interferon.
- A polypeptide product of expression of the DNA sequence of claim 2 in a transformed host cell.
Article 100102
Grounds for opposition
Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that:
(a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57;
(b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;
(c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under Article 61, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.
案件討論：
「異議制度」讓第三方在專利獲准後的一段時間內可提出專利無效的「異議」理由，此案例提出理由關乎EPC Art. 100(a)(b)(c)，包括新穎性、進步性、充分揭露，與請求項範圍超出原說明書記載內容等。
但是在異議階段時，異議人又提出新的異議理由（fresh ground），如Art. 100(c)，歐洲審理異議的部門不受理新的異議請求（理由是過了異議期限），於是異議人上訴訴願委員會，在口頭審理程序中，訴願人（原異議人）提出理由主要有：雖然這些新的異議理由沒有在異議通知中提到，但是但仍在異議部門審理之前提出，且其中並未有新的法律或事實意見。
參考歐洲擴大訴願委員會案例G 10/91、G 1/95，雖然在沒有納入新的法律議題（new legal issue）條件下應受理補充的新的異議理由。在EPC Art. 114(1)規定下，歐洲異議部門也應自主在第三方意見外審理相關事實，於是應在駁回異議理由前先審查這些補充新的理由是否會影響原專利權。
"As a consequence, the board of appeal considered that this ground had been part of the legal framework of the opposition and that its admittance into the appeal proceedings would not raise any new legal issue, and decided to examine it."
"Therefore, before declaring it inadmissible, the opposition division should have examined under Article 114(1) EPC whether the ground raised under Article 100(c) EPC could prejudice the maintenance of the patent."
涉及法條：
Article 114
Examination by the European Patent Office of its own motion
(1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts of its own
motion; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided
by the parties and the relief sought.
此案爭議之一是，由於歐洲專利法規定在專利核准公告後9個月內可提出異議程序（opposition），但是如果超過這個期限後提出的異議理由，歐洲擴大訴願委員會（Enlarged Board of Appeal）在過去案例中仍決議，由於異議制度目的是避免無效專利被核准，因此要求審查異議案的部門在駁回異議案以前至少要審查是否異議案所提出新的無效理由是有專利性相關的。
"the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 10/91 recognised that the aim of the patent prosecution to avoid invalid patents comes to the foreground as far as proceedings before the first instance are concerned, thereby indicating that the first instance at least needs to examine whether a fresh ground is relevant. Therefore, in the present case the opposition division should have examined the relevance of the fresh ground raised under Article 100(c) EPC before declaring it inadmissible."
本案訴願決定：
(1) 退回原異議部門審理新的異議理由的關聯性
(2) 異議受理單位有義務審查新的異議理由與系爭專利的相關性
(3) 本案不用進一步新的異議理由（本案為訴願駁回）
結論：
無論如何，第三方提出的"補充"異議理由會被檢驗是否有其專利性相關，但是不見得會受理審查專利性。
訴願案資訊：http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950736ep1.html#q=opposition
訴願案檔案備份：https://app.box.com/s/u37i3c9ls6e3q7uzgh3elngvzxmdrsyu
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言