- CAFC全院聯席決定IPR程序中可以修正 - Prolitec v. Scentair Tech (Fed. Cir. 2017)（本篇其實是討論Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/10/cafcipr-prolitec-v-scentair-tech-fed.html）
- 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）
日期：November 21, 2017
美國CAFC聯席法庭於2017年10月作出Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal判決，判決中有幾個意見：法院認為，在IPR程序中，當專利權人提出修正請求，PTAB有責任審查修正後的專利範圍的專利性，不能把責任丟給專利權人。
"(1) the PTO has not adopted a rule placing the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner that is entitled to deference; and (2) in the absence of anything that might be entitled deference, the PTO may not place that burden on the patentee."
當專利權人於IPR審查過程中提出符合35 U.S.C. § 316(d)要求（合理數量的替代請求項、並未擴大原專利範圍、未產生新事物）的修正請求（motion to amend），PTAB應判斷是否這些專利範圍在優越的證據與IPR請願人的異議理由下具有專利性。
舉例來說，如果所提出的全部證據與一或多項專利範圍的非專利性達到某種平衡，PTAB應同意修正請求，並納入系爭專利範圍中。
其實，就這篇guidance來看，在IPR階段的修正請求應符合37 C.F.R. § 42.121 or § 42.221（IPR程序中不得修正的情況：(1)擴大專利範圍；(2)產生新事物；(3)修正無法克服專利性問題），並且，專利權人要提供（或說補充）PTAB有關新增/替代/修正專利範圍專利性有關的重要資訊，這仍是十分嚴苛的規定，也提供委員不小的拒絕權力。
總之，IPR階段是可以提出修正請求，修正專利範圍的規定雖是嚴苛，但也不是不合理，提出修正的時機應在IPR程序中Scheduling Order（訂定時間表）之前。
[法條]
37 CFR 42.221 - Amendment of the patent.
§ 42.221 Amendment of the patent.
(a)Motion to amend. A patent owner may file one motion to amend a patent, but only after conferring with the Board.
(1)Due date. Unless a due date is provided in a Board order, a motion to amend must be filed no later than the filing of a patent owner response.
(2)Scope. A motion to amend may be denied where:
(i) The amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; or
(ii) The amendment seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter.
(3)A reasonable number of substitute claims. A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims. The presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.
(b)Content. A motion to amend claims must include a claim listing, which claim listing may be contained in an appendix to the motion, show the changes clearly, and set forth:
(1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended; and
(2) The support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.
(c)Additional motion to amend. In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any additional motion to amend may not be filed without Board authorization. An additional motion to amend may be authorized when there is a good cause showing or a joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance a settlement. In determining whether to authorize such an additional motion to amend, the Board will consider whether a petitioner has submitted supplemental information after the time period set for filing a motion to amend in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
35U.S.C.316(d)
(d) AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT.--(1) IN GENERAL.--During an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways:
(A) Cancel any challenged patent claim.
(B) For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.
(2) ADDITIONAL MOTIONS.--Additional motions to amend may be permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a proceeding under section 317, or as permitted by regulations prescribed by the Director.
(3) SCOPE OF CLAIMS.--An amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.
編按：
參考部落格曾經於2014年的報導，算是忠實反應這次的guidance：
IPR程序中修正專利請求項 - IPR2012-00027案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/ipr-ipr2012-00027.html）
其中描述了一些修正的原則：
- 對應35U.S.C.316(d)規定，不准修正請求的理由之一就是：修正並未針對專利異議理由（修正並未針對爭議的請求項）；
- 不准修正的另一理由是：修正擴大專利範圍，或是加入新事物；
- IPR異議中，行政法官會依照claim-by-claim、ground-by-ground的原則審理，在沒有特別情況下，每項請求項只能被一項請求項取代，修正請求（motion）要指定所要取代的請求項。否則修正請求將會被否決；
- 如果有特別的修正理由，專利權人的修正請求前需要知會PTAB；
- 對於每一項修正範圍，應該：
- (1)請求項可以區隔先前技術；
- (2)請求項相對於要被取代的相同異議範圍應有可專利的區隔性；
- (3)請求項相對於要被取代的其他被異議範圍應有可專利的區隔性。
- 專利權人應證明修正請求項的可專利性；
- 專利權人應證明修正請求項已經與已知最接近前案不同；
- 專利權人應證明沒有已知前案讓被取代請求項為顯而易知；
- 當修正要引入更多的特徵，要提出有意義的理由（Adding features for no meaningful reason is generally inconsistent with proposing a reasonable number of substitute claims, and also not responsive to an alleged ground of unpatentability.）；
- 如果無法證明以上條件，PTAB會否決修正請求。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言