例如：IPR啟始決定是不能上訴議題 - Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom (Fed. Cir. 2016)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/ipr-wi-fi-one-v-broadcom-fed-cir-2016.html
簡述本篇最初PTAB對於IPR2013-00226案的啟始與最終決定：
SAS啟始IPR程序，主張系爭專利（US 7,110,936）的"全部請求項"無效（102, 103）：
解釋請求項用語：
啟始決定，僅啟始部分請求項繼續審理：
PTAB最終決定（final decision）：
（啟始無效理由）
（最終決定）
案件經SAS上訴進入CAFC，CAFC於June 10, 2016對於「SAS v ComplementSoft」作出同意「PTAB僅針對部分啟始的被異議請求項範圍做決定」的決定。
之後，SAS付諸CAFC全院聯席（en banc），CAFC全院聯席否決SAS對於PTAB作出部分啟始（partial institution）決定的上訴議題，不受理，這樣看來可以表示，CAFC沒有必要否決PTAB作出的任何啟始決定。
案件資訊：
上訴人：SAS INSTITUTE, INC.
交叉上訴人：COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC.
IPR案號：IPR2013-00226
系爭專利：US 7,110,936
系爭專利有關產生與維護軟體程式碼的技術，Claim 1界定一個「環境」，元件有文件管理員、顯示編輯器、語法解析層，以及視覺化的程序。
Claim 1：
1. An integrated development environment, comprising:
a document manager for retrieving source code programmed using one of a plurality of types of data manipulation languages;
an editor for displaying the retrieved source code and providing a means for a user to edit the retrieved source code;
a parser layer which detects the one of the plurality of types of data manipulation languages in which the retrieved source code is programmed and which activates rules and logic applicable to the detected one of the plurality of types of data manipulation languages; and
a visualizer dynamically linked to the editor for displaying graphical representations of flows within the retrieved source code using the rules and logic applicable to the detected one of the plurality of types of data manipulation languages and activated by the parser, wherein the editor, parser layer and visualizer cooperate such that edits made to the source code using the editor are automatically reflected in the graphical representations of flows displayed by the visualizer and edits made to the graphical representations of flows in the visualizer are automatically reflected in the source code displayed by the editor.
系爭專利就是使用流程的視覺化方法進行程式的技術，以上請求項就現在的眼光來看，可能不容易核准專利，特別還在其答辯過程中因為加入了「data manipulation language」就核准專利...，真是有值得討論的地方。
本案例緣起（可參考本篇上半段摘要），PTAB在IPR2013-00226的啟始決定僅啟始部分被異議的請求項，並據此作出最終決定，原始IPR程序由SAS對系爭專利Claims 1-16提出異議，PTAB僅啟始當中的Claims 1, 10-13，SAS對此意見提出上訴。
上訴中，除了專利性議題外，就是SAS質疑為何PTAB最終決定僅針對啟始決定要審理的幾項範圍，而不是全部（至少要作出意見）。
CAFC法官引用前案Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)的決定，CAFC法官解釋35 U.S.C. § 318(a)以及有自己的空間，認為PTAB僅須針對被啟始審理的請求項做決定即可。
CAFC->CAFC en banc。
CAFC en banc否決重審異議的上訴：
仍有反對者，Newman法官根據35 U.S.C. § 318(a)規定，不同意全院聯席決定，認為法律規定PTAB應對異議人提出的所有被異議請求項進行審理，而非僅針對被啟始的部分。(updated on Mar. 2, 2017)
[相關法條]
35 U.S.C. 318 DECISION OF THE BOARD
- (a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.—If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d).
- (b) CERTIFICATE.—If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent by operation of the certificate any new or amended claim determined to be patentable.
- (c) INTERVENING RIGHTS.—Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following an inter partes review under this chapter shall have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation therefor, before the issuance of a certificate under subsection (b).
- (d) DATA ON LENGTH OF REVIEW.—The Office shall make available to the public data describing the length of time between the institution of, and the issuance of a final written decision under subsection (a) for, each inter partes review.
35 U.S.C. 314 INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW.
- (a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
- (b) TIMING.—The Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 311 within 3 months after—
- (1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under section 313; or
- (2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date on which such response may be filed.
- (c) NOTICE.—The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent owner, in writing, of the Director’s determination under subsection (a), 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.
- (d) NO APPEAL.—The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.
my two cents:
其實SAS應該已經達成部分目的，因為有好幾項重要的範圍都被無效，但是SAS顯然不夠滿意，才以此次議題提出上訴，我們又上了一課。
updated on Mar. 6, 本篇已經由SAS上訴最高法院，要求法院作出統一PTAB是否對所有被挑戰請求項作出最終決定的見解
此外，我想，如果SAS用CBM，或比較有機會可能成功撤銷掉系爭專利。
從IPR程序啟動以來，一直是個頗有爭議的議題，本部落格也算是有很多的討論，根據好幾次IPR程序上訴到CAFC的案例，其中涉及啟始決定、是否同一群人可以決定啟始與最終決定、專利權人與異議人的權利義務、可上訴議題、修正議題，以及在IPR如何解釋專利範圍，都有案例可以參考，如下列舉，漸漸地，IPR就"步上正軌"。
- IPR程序中專利權人應證明修正後專利範圍具有專利性 - In re Aqua Products (PTAB, CAFC no.2015-1177) - http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/ipr-in-re-aqua-products-ptab-cafc.html
- IPR啟始決定是不能上訴議題 - Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom (Fed. Cir. 2016) - http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/ipr-wi-fi-one-v-broadcom-fed-cir-2016.html
- IPR程序中是否可修正的問題 - Veritas Tech v. Veeam Software (Fed. Cir. 2016) - http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/ipr-veritas-tech-v-veeam-software-fed.html
- IPR程序中啟始與最終意見是否由同一群人決定的討論 - Ethicon Endo-Surgery Order Re En Banc Petition - http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/07/ipr-ethicon-endo-surgery-order-re-en.html
- 最高法院同意IPR程序中採用BRI原則 - Cuozzo v. Lee - http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/iprbri-cuozzo-v-lee.html
CAFC判決：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1346.Opinion.6-8-2016.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/qrg2hnweetm4nxv65ixs761gb2lez2r8）
CAFC en banc決定：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1346.Order.11-3-2016.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/ps4nzf99gjxqkt6dbym1ey9bbeljfyzn）
參考資料：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/11/institution-decisions-circuit.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言