本篇報導涉及IPR異議人（petitioner）對相同專利權提出多件IPR的議題，對於這種類似「干擾」或是「重複工作」的議題，USPTO提出一些考量因素。
35 U.S.C. § 314為IPR的基本規範，包括提供PTAB主管決定是否啟始IPR的權力、決定啟始時間，甚至PTAB主管的決定是不能被挑戰（上訴）的。
這回，當爭議告一段落時，USPTO依據IPR過程中PTAB的決定，針對IPR異議人在某件IPR程序接近結束（拒絕啟始）時，又提出其他針對相同專利相同專利範圍的IPR程序的情況，作出（或說"強調"）以下幾個考量因素（"Applying Factors to Evaluate the Equities of Permitting Follow-on Petitions is a Proper Exercise of Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)"）：
- whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent;
- whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it;
- whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition;
- the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition;
- whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent;
- the finite resources of the Board; and
- the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review.
考量因素二：是否第一次請願時已知（或應該知道）第二次請願中的先前技術？
考量因素三：是否提出第二次請願時已經接獲專利權人對第一次請願的初步答辯書（preliminary response），或是已經接獲PTAB作出是否啟始IPR的決定；
考量因素四：考量請願人知悉第二次請願中提出的先前技術與提出第二次請願的時間間隔；
考量因素五：是否請願人對相同專利的相同請求項範圍提出多次請願的時間差提供充分的解釋？
考量因素六：考量PTAB的有限資源；
考量因素七：考量在PTAB主管作出啟始決定後一年內作出IPR最終決定的時間規定。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
案件資訊：
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)
IPR異議人：GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
專利權人：CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA
IPR案號：
Case IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
Case IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
Case IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
Case IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
Case IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
本案緣起異議人General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.對專利權人Canon Kabushiki Kaisha提出五件IPR，而IPR決定皆為拒絕啟始，其中涉及對相同專利權提出多件IPR的議題。
這是一件類似合併審理的案件，因為IPR請願人General Plastic對Canon的專利提出多件IPR異議，這雖然是一個「高壓式」的訴訟技巧，想要讓對手伏首稱臣，卻也可能造成全盤皆墨。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
以IPR2016-01357為例，系爭專利'820關於印表機墨粉盒的設計與運作，異議人提出引證案挑戰系爭專利請求項，並在PTAB拒絕啟始IPR時，又接著提出幾件針對相同專利權的IPR，但不同次的petition使用不同的先前技術。
IPR2016-01357：
Canon根據35 U.S.C. § 314規定，PTAB拒絕異議人對於相同專利權（相同專利、相同專利範圍）提出後續請願的規定是基於法條中不得對IPR決定提出上訴的規範，然而，這幾次petition都引用不同先前技術，或許並非不合法，因為實質議題是不同的。
但是，PTAB仍拒絕異議人後續提出的IPR，理由是第一次與第二次IPR異議程序提出時間相隔9個月以上，專利權人已經完成初步答辯，且已經作出第一次IPR拒絕啟始的決定，PTAB的理由包括：
PTAB認定異議人早在之前已經知悉後續加入的先前技術，沒有證據顯示需要新的檢索得到新的證據，也沒有需要一定要回應此類新的先前技術。
"As to Suzuki, General Plastic does not assert, or even suggest, that the reference could not have been found by an earlier reasonable prior art search. The record is also devoid of evidence that there were unexpected or changed circumstances that would have prompted a new later search. For instance, there is no allegation that new art was sought to respond to an issue like the adoption of a claim construction that differed from the construction advocated by General Plastic in the First Petition."
PTAB引用過去案例Nvidia的IPR決定：對於相同專利權作出一系列攻擊存在著潛在的不公平（potential inequity），會因專利權人的答辯或是PTAB的決定而可能轉變訴訟立場，因此這類議題應該要重視。
"The potential inequity based on a petitioner’s filing of serial attacks against the same claims of the same patent, while having the opportunity to adjust litigation positions along the way based on either the patent owner’s contentions responding to prior challenges or the Board’s decision on prior challenges, is real and cannot be ignored."
這樣表示，在一系列強力攻擊的態勢會可能造成一種潛在不公平，反而會讓審查者對被攻擊方產生同情。
如此，PTAB反而不是因為"事實"，而是因為「情況」而作出拒絕啟始的決定（
IPR2016-01357）。
"The filing of sequential attacks against the same claims, with the opportunity to morph positions along the way, imposes inequities on Canon. Here, absent any rationale as to why these challenges could not have been brought earlier, and weighing the respective inequalities, we view the prejudice to Canon under these circumstances to be greater than that to General Plastic. We, therefore, decline to institute inter partes review here."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
擴大PTAB決定：
異議人General Plastic提出反制，認為PTAB錯誤採用如前述Nvidia案例的考量因素，認為PTAB偏袒專利權人。
不過PTAB仍否決異議人提出重審的請願，理由一：擴大委員會並非標準程序，除非有「特別重要的議題（exceptional importance）」，這不同於EPO的擴大訴願委員會，Enlarged Board or Appeal等同於法院的程序。
理由二：提出重審的一方有責任指出之前的決定有誤解或忽視的議題。
"A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply."
理由三：如果要重審，是因為先前決定錯誤解釋法條、有具體證據證明錯誤事實發現、依據不合理因素的判決。
接著，針對對相同專利權提出多次IPR的情況，PTAB提出幾點考量因素（本文開始已經敘述），在這些考量下，PTAB仍作出不啟始決定（"Applying these factors to the follow-on petitions, we concluded that the circumstances did not warrant institution of inter partes reviews."）
"For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion, or that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue, in denying institution of inter partes reviews in Cases IPR2016-01357, IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, and IPR2016-01361."
my two cents:
連續出擊應該是可以讓人伏首稱臣的手段之一，顯然需要財力雄厚的基礎，然而，是否「干擾」到原本的程序，造成「潛在的不公平」問題，或是心態被質疑，這些都很微妙，應該也沒有準則，但是，確實在訴訟中要小心證據提出的時機，當有偏袒時，已經來不及。
或是，就針對這些僵化、陷入泥淖的議題提出上訴CAFC，轉個陣地可以改變各種環境因素。
USPTO提供IPR決定連結：
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/general_plastic_industrial_co_ltd_v_canon_kabushiki_kaisha_ipr2016_01357_paper_19.pdf?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/fnkfdsdvru3jj0ic6vqxvfu5lv1nbckp）
[相關法條]
35 U.S. Code § 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—
35 U.S. Code § 316 - Conduct of inter partes review
(a)Regulations.—The Director shall prescribe regulations—
(11)
requiring that the final determination in an inter partes review be issued not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter, except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year period by not more than 6 months, and may adjust the time periods in this paragraph in the case of joinder under section 315(c);
本部落格涉及35 U.S.C. § 314的文章：
- 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）
- IPR啟始與終判的權力討論 - Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inv. V. Covidien LP（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/01/ipr-ethicon-endo-surgery-inv-v-covidien.html）
- IPR取代Inter Partes Reexamination的35USC314（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/iprinter-partes-reexamination35usc314.html）
- PTAB僅需對啟始審理的請求項作出最終決定 - SAS v ComplementSoft (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/11/sas-v-complementsoft-fed-cir-2016.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）
拒絕重審決定檔案備份：https://app.box.com/s/fnkfdsdvru3jj0ic6vqxvfu5lv1nbckp
IPR2016-01357決定：https://app.box.com/s/7dxd68d8mt4pt7vcjjk62qgf2dvzp4oc
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言