問題與解決方案（Problem‑and‑solution approach） - 歐洲專利審查基準

筆記

歐洲審查委員要求針對新穎性與進步性提出有說服力的答辯意見，特別是提出「problem-solution approach」，問題與解決方案。


歐洲專利審查基準 Part G, Chapter VII, 5規範進步性答辯時所考量的「Problem and Solution approach」：在此進步性討論中，以”客觀與可預見的方式“考量申請人提出的技術問題與解決方案，第一，判斷最相近先前技術；第二，得出被解決的客觀技術問題；第三，考量是否請求項發明在以上兩點考量中為相關領域技術人員為顯而易見。

Part G, Chapter VII, 5.Problem‑and‑solution approach 

In order to assess inventive step in an objective and predictable manner, the so-called "problem-and-solution approach" should be applied. Thus deviation from this approach should be exceptional.

In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages:

(i)

determining the "closest prior art", 

(ii)

establishing the "objective technical problem" to be solved, and 

(iii)

considering whether or not the claimed invention, starting from the closest prior art and the objective technical problem, would have been obvious to the skilled person. 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5.htm

Ron

Rule 36之後呢？（之一）

筆記

過去報導：Rule 36筆記 - 讓CAFC作出沒有意見的決定（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/07/rule-36-cafc.html）

當案件上訴時，（CAFC或其他），Rule 36讓上訴法院法官有權限可以在沒有意見的情況下直接終判（維持原判，affirmances without a written opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36）。

美國聯邦法院上訴程序中的Rule 36：

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_36

Rule 36. Entry of Judgment; Notice

(a) Entry. A judgment is entered when it is noted on the docket. The clerk must prepare, sign, and enter the judgment:

(1) after receiving the court's opinion—but if settlement of the judgment's form is required, after final settlement; or

(2) if a judgment is rendered without an opinion, as the court instructs.

(b) Notice. On the date when judgment is entered, the clerk must serve on all parties a copy of the opinion—or the judgment, if no opinion was written—and a notice of the date when the judgment was entered.

要滿足可以Rule 36作出維持原判而不用提出意見的條件有：

- 先前決定並沒有明顯錯誤

- 證據支持先前決定（如陪審團的決定）

- 過去的記錄支持下級法院中的簡易判決、裁決或上訴判決

- 在法規授權下審理標準下維持原判

- 先前判決或決定並沒有違法法律

依照Rule 36作出沒有意見的決定是個快速了結的方式，不過對上訴人而言卻是不堪，之後的後續方案可以提出復審（petition for panel rehearing，Rule 40）。

當法院判決後，可以在期限（14或45天，未延期）內提出復審請願（petition for panel rehearing），描述法院的誤解或是忽略的意見（有一定的字數與頁數限制），並可能執行口頭辯論，如果法院同意請願，最後會提出最終判決、回復案件到重提意見的時間，或是提出其他命令。

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_40

Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing

(a) Time to File; Contents; Answer; Action by the Court if Granted.

(1) Time. Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. But in a civil case, unless an order shortens or extends the time, the petition may be filed by any party within 45 days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is:

(A) the United States;

(B) a United States agency;

(C) a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity; or

(D) a current or former United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States' behalf — including all instances in which the United States represents that person when the court of appeals' judgment is entered or files the petition for that person.

(2) Contents. The petition must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition. Oral argument is not permitted.

(3) Answer. Unless the court requests, no answer to a petition for panel rehearing is permitted. But ordinarily rehearing will not be granted in the absence of such a request.

(4) Action by the Court. If a petition for panel rehearing is granted, the court may do any of the following:

(A) make a final disposition of the case without reargument;

(B) restore the case to the calendar for reargument or resubmission; or

(C) issue any other appropriate order.

(b) Form of Petition; Length. The petition must comply in form with Rule 32. Copies must be served and filed as Rule 31 prescribes. Except by the court’s permission:

(1) a petition for panel rehearing produced using a computer must not exceed 3,900 words; and

(2) a handwritten or typewritten petition for panel rehearing must not exceed 15 pages.

另可依照Rule 35提出CAFC聯席法官意見（en banc）：
全院聯席（En Banc）複審的條件：(1)有必要確保或維持法院統一見解；(2)涉及非常重要的議題。
提出全院聯席複審時，需要提出聲明：(A)說明法官意見與最高法院意見相左，而有需要全院聯席維持統一見解；(B)簡要說明訴訟中有非常重要議題，特別是有法院意見相左的議題。

提出En Banc複審請求時間如Rule 40規定，是否同意全院聯席複審，法官可以投票決定。

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35

Rule 35. En Banc Determination

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.

(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:

(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

(2) Except by the court's permission:

(A) a petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing produced using a computer must not exceed 3,900 words; and

(B) a handwritten or typewritten petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing must not exceed 15 pages.

(3) For purposes of the limits in Rule 35(b)(2), if a party files both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, they are considered a single document even if they are filed separately, unless separate filing is required by local rule.

(c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee's brief is due. A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 40 for filing a petition for rehearing.

(d) Number of Copies. The number of copies to be filed must be prescribed by local rule and may be altered by order in a particular case.

(e) Response. No response may be filed to a petition for an en banc consideration unless the court orders a response.

(f) Call for a Vote. A vote need not be taken to determine whether the case will be heard or reheard en banc unless a judge calls for a vote.

一些有關Rule 36的討論：
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/22/rule-36-judgment/id=72108/
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/stambler-mastercard-petition.html

Stambler v. Mastercard上訴到最高法院，Leon Stambler提出兩個待解決的議題：

第一是有關CBM（Covered Business Method）異議制度，也如將於今年中要解決的Oil States案討論IPR異議制度是否違憲一般，認為CBM為通過非Article III以陪審團決議而剝奪私有權的制度違憲。

第二，是否CAFC以Rule 36判決違反專利法35 U.S.C. § 144應發出其授權與意見的規定。

本部落格過去相關第一議題的報導：

• 用來消滅私人財產的IPR違憲？ - Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/07/ipr-oil-states-energy-v-greenes-energy.html）
• 大哉問：專利權是私權還是公權？ - Cascades Projections v. Epson America (Fed. Cir. 2017)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/12/cascades-projections-v-epson-america.html）
• IPR是否違憲？法官們的立場不一（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2018/02/ipr.html）

[35 U.S.C. § 144]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/144

35 U.S. Code § 144 - Decision on appeal

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall review the decision from which an appeal is taken on the record before the Patent and Trademark Office. Upon its determination the court shall issue to the Director its mandate and opinion, which shall be entered of record in the Patent and Trademark Office and shall govern the further proceedings in the case.

my two cents:
今年將是重要的一年，理由是AIA下的IPR, PGR, CBM等制度是否違憲而會被撤銷、修正、改良，就是年中會有一個答案。Rule 36是否有違法或是不足，是否法院應該要合理給人民回應與解決提出的疑慮，而不能「沒有意見」，這個rule似乎也將給大家一個交代。

Ron

摘要的撰寫 - 避免言外之意

摘要，一般來說就是表達整個專利技術重點，實務上常常可以將申請專利範圍中最核心的內容（如claim 1）以普通文字寫在摘要這個部分。摘要其實不是這麼嚴肅的事（甚至文法錯誤也沒怎樣～＃！＠＄，以下有範例），頗為單純，但是其中規定（或說提醒）還不少。

例如此案，US9025357，整個專利可核准，就差「摘要」撰寫"被認為"不符規定（因為有言外之意？），即便代理人不服，但仍是作出修正。

修正前：


修正後：


上述修正被提示要刪除「is disclosed」，確實很怪，且文法有問題，不過專利就這樣糊弄一下就准了。

審查意見引用的內容：


其中審查委員「暗示」要將「is disclosed」刪除，因為它「暗示」了一些事。

就是「MPEP 608.01(B)」其中段落：

「摘要應以敘事方式撰寫，並限定在分開紙張的單一約50~150英文字的段落，應避免使用請求項的格式與法律措辭，如"means"（手段）與"said"（該），摘要描述的內容要實質幫助讀者決定是否有需要進一步查閱完整的專利文本。摘要用語應該清晰簡潔，不應重複如專利名稱的資訊，應避免使用暗示的用語，如"the disclosure concerns"、"the disclosure defined by this invention"與"the disclosure describes"等」。

這裡所謂「暗示（imply, implication）」應是指「言外之意」，或說「其他含意」。當摘要的用意是讓讀者可以快速得到專利的主要精神，就不應有「言外之意」。因此，MPEP提示哪些會有「言外之意」，列舉了常常會寫的「the disclosure concerns」、「the disclosure defined by this invention」與「the disclosure describes」等。

所以，「摘要」的原意是要以淺顯（非法律措辭）易懂的內容"準確地"幫助讀者判斷是否要進一步查閱說明書的詳細內容，讓讀者可以快速得到發明中新技術的粗略內容（"determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains"）。因此，摘要也常常是提供檢索時最佳的初步參考資訊。

"The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.

The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc."

參考資料：
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01_b.html

美國專利說明書中摘要的撰寫規定：

37 C.F.R. 1.72 TITLE AND ABSTRACT.
(b) A brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure." The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.

MPEP 608.01(B) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

摘要要寫甚麼？

The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.

...


Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract.

Ron

結構特徵也可以隱含在製程描述中 - In re Nordt Development Co., LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In re Nordt Development Co., LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

前言： 本案為少見的專利申請人「如此頑強」地為了專利性上訴到CAFC的案例，結果是"部分"偏向申請人。

本篇案例討論到product by process，這是「製程」相關案很重要的申請專利範圍，除了製程範圍外，如何「界定一個產品」？

案件資訊：
上訴人：NORDT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC
系爭案：13/241,865（公開號：US 2012/0016284）
判決日：February 8, 2018

本案緣起系爭案在專利審查階段被核駁後，提出訴願，PTAB仍然確認系爭專利請求項Claims 1, 14不具專利性的決定，申請人上訴CAFC。

系爭案關於一種樞紐關節具有雙樞軸的支持結構，結構具有可彈性延伸的框架，以及樞紐結構，請求項經審查過程中，最後到訴訟的範圍共有20項，其中Claim 1, 14為獨立項，Claim 1如下，具有樞紐關節的支持結構包括樞紐結構、塑膠可延展框架與其相關細節結構（如下圖），其中以「injection molded」描述支撐結構、兩側結構（arm）與相關框架。

1. A support for an area of a body that includes a hinge joint, comprising:
(a) a hinge mechanism comprising an injection molded strut component and injection molded first and second arm components;
(b) an elastically stretchable framework injection molded about the strut and arm components of the hinge mechanism, the framework being configured to extend
across the hinge joint of the area of the body, and the framework defining a flexible, elastically stretchable web of elastomeric interconnecting members;
(c) wherein the first arm component is connected to the strut component such that the first arm component is rotatable relative to the strut component only about a first pivot axis;
(d) wherein the second arm component is connected to the strut component such that the second arm component is rotatable relative to the strut component only about a second pivot axis; and 
(e) wherein the strut component is configured to extend with the framework across the hinge joint such that the first pivot axis is located on a first side of the hinge joint and the second pivot axis is located on a second, opposite side of the hinge joint.

這是一種塑膠護膝，專利圖示如下，判決書有彩色照片，編號106為塑膠網狀的框架、108為具有支撐112的樞接處，以及兩側結構114, 116。



請求項中用語「"injection molded"（注塑成型）」實際是描述一個製程動作，PTAB判定這個用語對於解釋專利範圍沒有比重（"no patentable weight"），但CAFC判定PTAB解釋專利範圍有誤，成為勝訴（部分）的關鍵。

系爭案說明書描述「injection molded」是一個較佳的製作方法，例如：

"The supports of the invention and, in particular, the embodiments collectively shown and described above preferably are manufactured in injection molding processes, whereby the various components of each embodiment of the support, including, inter alia, the framework and strut components, are integrally formed from elastomeric materials."

"In particular, the strut components and strap interface components can be formed through injection molding of a first elastomeric material, and then the framework can be formed through injection molding of a second elastomeric material about the strut components and strap interface components."

一般來說，在請求項中以「製程」描述一些結構關係，可能會被視為「product by process」，而在美國專利實務中，這類申請專利範圍中的製程描述會是"no weight"，不列入專利性考慮中，使得引用前案審查時，即便前案沒有揭露此製作方式，但結構上已經涵蓋，仍成為有效的先前技術。例如，系爭案審查時，面對先前專利US6,238,360（如下圖式），審查委員認為此前案'360已經涵蓋系爭案請求項所界定的支持結構。


答辯時，專利申請人Nordt主張「injection molded」表達了明確的結構限制，而前案'360卻沒有揭露以「injection molded」製作的支撐結構與框架。


PTO審查委員承認'360並未揭露以「injection molded」製程，但是系爭案請求項為產品，前案已經揭露其中結構特徵。案件上訴到PTAB，PTAB同樣認為製程產生的結構特徵並未有說服力而駁回專利。

進入CAFC：

上訴議題是：上訴人主張PTAB錯誤將請求項視為「product-by-process」專利範圍，而將其中「injection molded」視為製程特徵而沒有專利比重（no patentable weight）。

product by process專利範圍解釋原則：

原則上，CAFC法官在解釋「product-by-process」專利範圍時，仍以其中產品本身（product）為主，並非其中製程特徵（process）。

參考案例：In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability
is based on the product itself.”).

以上原則是對的，然而，又不是那麼地儀文主義，一旦製程特徵指向特定結構特徵，仍可能被考慮為結構的限制（structural limitation），仍應列入專利性考量。

"If the process limitation connotes specific structure and may be considered a structural limitation, however, that structure should be considered. In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) (holding that “interbonded one to another by interfusion” connotes structure to a claimed composite and should therefore be considered in the determination of patentability)."

按照案例Garnero，其中專利範圍描述的「intermixed, ground in place, press fitted, etched, welded」等製程的全部或是分開都會產生結構特徵，如此，系爭案Claim 1應該被解釋為具有製程的產品專利範圍，而不僅是結構專利範圍。

"The trouble with the solicitor’s approach is that it necessarily assumes that claim 1 should be construed as a product claim containing a process, rather than structural, limitation."

CAFC法官認為，product by process專利範圍的專利性審查時，應該是：通過整個專利範圍的限制所定義出的結構特徵。換句話說，不是僅看結構的描述而刻意忽略其中製程特徵，而是整體定義出的結構特徵。

（重要）因此，即便系爭案說明書描述「injection molded」為製程步驟，但卻忽略了以此製程產生的結構差異（具有彈性的塑膠結構），CAFC駁回PTAB對於製程特徵不給予任何可專利的比重的意見。

my two cents:
以上提及的兩個案例應該要曉得：Thorpe與Garnero。

本篇系爭案在PTO、PTAB就如一般經驗，解釋產品範圍時，「直接排除請求項中製程特徵」，而僅審查其中結構特徵，即便前案沒有其中製程（本案指”injection molded”）特徵，但是結構特徵一致，仍判不具新穎性。

（PTO、PTAB意見雖被否決，但這個階段是一般案件才要面對的課題，所以當務之急仍是要解決審查委員心中的疑慮，因此，本篇案例可能可以成為此類核駁答辯的參考：『如果產品請求項中「製程特徵」仍指向某種結構特徵，不能忽略，也就是要通過整個專利範圍的限制所定義出的結構特徵』）

（重要）product by process專利範圍的專利性審查時，應該是：通過整個專利範圍的限制所定義出的結構特徵。以整體定義出的結構範圍比對先前技術。這樣也提示我們，撰寫這類專利說明書時，要很明確地將製程連結（製作）到結構特徵，並且答辯時，申請人也要很明確地指出這些關聯。

本篇給予product-by-process很好的註解。

即便判決偏向申請人，但是仍確定一件事：當考量具有方法特徵的產品專利的專利性時，專利範圍將僅及於產品本身，但是是專利範圍整體效果產生的產品。

"We have held that, when considering the patentability of product claims that contain process limitations, claim scope is generally based on the product itself, not the process."

判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1445.Opinion.2-6-2018.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/n1h6uxmtzj1bmtujknbt7ndl7aulw3t5）

參考資料：https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/federal-circuit-injected-molded-limitation-imparts-structure-although-we-cant-define-what-structure.html

Ron

IPR是否違憲？法官們的立場不一

Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy案掀起的波瀾會在今年有個定案，一些前情可參考：用來消滅私人財產的IPR違憲？ - Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy。這裡又寫一次主要是因為有些事情稍微沉澱一下，會多出一些心得，加上又爬了一些文章。

這個案例掀起的憲法層次的議題是：IPR程序是否違憲？專利權既然是行政機關賦予的權利，如何又在行政體系的IPR程序被撤銷？是否沒有如法院正當程序的IPR取代了司法的一部分功能？

IPR費用直接到訴訟的等級，雖比法院訴訟便宜，不過前陣子跟風漲價，一個request就$15,500，PGR也不惶多讓：

IPWatchdog這篇文章從法官在去年聽證時提出的問題而簡單判斷了諸位法官的態度，還有些政治味：http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/11/27/supreme-court-hears-oil-states-challenge-constitutionality-ipr/id=90510/

IPR是否違憲？或是主張是私權？等疑慮都是專利權人提出的議題。IPR自2011年AIA法案通過而於2012年開始實施以來，經啟始（institution）後的專利會有近76%得被挑戰專利範圍被判無效，比在侵權訴訟中地院判決專利無效的比例28%高得多。

對此現象，IPWatchdog專家給了個答案：PTO實施寬鬆的程序，相對嚴謹的法院程序，PTO的程序標準很低。

如果專利是個私權（私有財產），對於財產的撤銷應有相當嚴謹的法律程序，雖然我看來IPR算是頗為繁複，但專利性議題似乎只是要面對專利權人而已，可能在權力上都不如法院需要面對公眾利益裁量的等級。

更者，專利權可能維繫著專利權人投入心血開發的產品，當專利權人倚賴著某件專利或是某個專利組合進行商業發展，過了幾年，突然專利失效，看來這是個巨大的挫敗，不過，這個過程不會是法院要去考量的，就法院來看，專利性討論“很超然”，而需要如PTO等外部單位提供某種程度的協助，如此看來IPR仍是不錯的方案。

IPR這個制度出現，很大的原因是希望在法院判定侵權與否之前，可以「低費用」在「短時間」內獲得專利性的「再次確認」（侵權被告通常的手段），IPR多數可以在1~1.5年得到結果，不過，如果加上CAFC的上訴程序，也可能拉到3~4年，仍然會產生高額的費用，這樣，仍然失去了設定這個制度的初衷。

看來，接著的這年將是IPR存廢的關鍵，或是，會以一個嶄新的面貌重新開始。

參考資料：
Supreme Court seems split on Oil States constitutionality challenge to IPR proceedings
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/11/27/supreme-court-hears-oil-states-challenge-constitutionality-ipr/id=90510/

Patent Review in an Article I Tribunal is Unconstitutional Under the Public Rights Doctrine
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/03/patent-review-article-i-tribunal-unconstitutional-public-rights-doctrine/id=88760/

Ron

不公平行為造成壟斷的管轄權爭議 - Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp (Fed. Cir. 2018)

本篇案例是個司法議題，在此僅筆記，並沒有多餘的見解。
Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp (Fed. Cir. 2018)

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：XITRONIX CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人/專利權人：KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, DBA KLA-TENCOR, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
系爭專利：US8,817,260（專利權人：Kla-Tencor Corporation）

本案緣起原告Xitronix主張Kla-Tencor Corporation取得系爭專利是基於對PTO蓄意欺瞞的行為（"It alleges KLA intentionally made false representations to the PTO on which the examiner relied during prosecution."）（"inequitable conduct"），地方法院在簡易判決時，認為即便審查歷史錯誤陳述先前技術的狀態，但是審查答辯所提出的言論仍是被公平地檢驗，不會視為錯誤陳述事實。

本案接著上訴CAFC，即便涉及「欺瞞PTO」的專利基本議題，CAFC判決在本案中「Walker Process壟斷」的議題並不符美國專利法中規定上訴法院的管轄權，本次判決為根據「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」最高法院判決而翻轉了CAFC於2008年案例「In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride (Cipro) Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)」有關法院立場的判決。

「是否地區法院（包括地方法院、聯邦法院）法律適用Walker Process壟斷議題？」

「Walker Process壟斷」為典型由被告在專利侵權訴訟中提出的主張，而多數這類議題都會上訴CAFC，且專利侵權議題是CAFC的管轄範圍；但是，此案例中「Walker Process壟斷」的討論對是源自PTO欺瞞的不正當行為，所關聯的管轄權是依據28 U.S. Code § 1338(a)，使得管轄權在此案被轉向地區法院。

即便訴訟雙方都認為CAFC對此案有管轄權，都提出意見，但這些意見都沒有影響「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」的最高法院意旨：美國各州法律稱專利案件中的弊端並非根據聯邦專利法的管轄權。

"in Gunn, the Supreme Court held that a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case does not “arise under” federal patent law for purposes of exclusive federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)."

主要原因就是，這些爭議並非專利法的實質議題，與專利是否有效、侵權，而僅涉及原專利權人是否有錯誤陳述的議題，專利不會因此成為有效或無效，其中涉及的「Walker Process 壟斷」議題可以由地區法院判決，也不會破壞整個體制。

"Because Federal Circuit law applies to substantive questions involving our exclusive jurisdiction, the fact that at least some Walker Process claims may be appealed to the regional circuits will not undermine our uniform body of patent law."

於是，CAFC仍決定將上訴議題轉換到第五聯邦巡迴法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit）（28 U.S. Code § 1295）。根據Patently-O專家表示，這顯示州法院與聯邦法院之間的平衡性。




所述「Walker Process壟斷」議題源自美國1965年最高法院對於「Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 176–77 (1965)」的意見：因為欺瞞PTO獲取專利的權利主張違反「Sherman Act聯邦反壟斷法」

"the Supreme Court held that enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the PTO may be a federal antitrust violation under the Sherman Act."

- 「Walker Process monopolization」：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Process_Equipment,_Inc._v._Food_Machinery_%26_Chemical_Corp.

判決書：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2746.Order.2-7-2018.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/51r7bc3ypmxtuld8x4ije46dvm7wyf4k）

[相關法條]
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)規範聯邦法院上訴法院管轄權，其中第(a)(1)款規範美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（CAFC）的專屬管轄權：CAFC為美國地方法院終判的民事上訴法院，包括為關島地區法院（Guam）、維京群島地區法院（Virgin Islands）與北馬里亞納群島地區法院（Northern Mariana）等的民事最終判決的上訴法院。

28 U.S. Code § 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(a)The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—

(1)

of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, in any civil action arising under, or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection;

...

28 U.S. Code § 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

(a)

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

...


my two cents:
我覺得，此案可能是特例，因為過去仍有許多涉及「不公平行為」產生不合理壟斷的議題在CAFC法院解決，或許有更深層面的司法考慮（反壟斷法、Sherman Act！）。日後應會對最高法院判例「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」、CAFC「In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)」案作出一些研究。

我不是學法律的，但長期來看美國法院的判決、議題討論，都覺得這個充滿「智慧」的層層規範，或說制約，其中邏輯與判斷（即便有些也覺得不合理）都是另我讚嘆。

- 「Walker Process monopolization」：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Process_Equipment,_Inc._v._Food_Machinery_%26_Chemical_Corp.

- Wikipedia有關「美國法院」的記載：https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/美国联邦上诉法院
"美國的50個州、首都華盛頓特區同其境外領土被劃分為13個審判區域，設有13個巡迴上訴法院。其中11個巡迴法院由數字命名，其餘兩個法院分別是哥倫比亞特區巡迴上訴法院和美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院。"

過去有關1295條報導參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/01/phigenix-v-immunogen-fed-cir-2017.html（上訴的立場）

有關「反壟斷法」的相關報導：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/05/transweb-v-3m-fed-cir-2016.html

參考資料：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/federal-circuit-walker-process-claims-do-not-arise-under-us-patent-law.html

Ron

專利用詞「device」討論 - Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson (Fed. Cir. 2013)

本篇討論專利用詞「device」，案例為Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson (Fed. Cir. 2013)。

「device」就是裝置嘛！？偏偏就是有文章。編按，與其說是討論"device"怎麼解釋，還不如說是討論解釋專利範圍時，特定用語將可能受限於說明書、圖式、審查歷史的主張，況且本案中處處都限定「device」為何，無法說服人可以更寬廣地解釋這個東西。

案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人：BRUCE N. SAFFRAN, M.D., PH.D. ("Saffran")
被告/上訴人：JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND CORDIS CORPORATION ("Cordis")
系爭專利：US5,653,760
本案緣起東德州地方法院判決被告Cordis侵權成立，經被告上訴後，CAFC判定地方法院錯誤解釋專利範圍，重新解釋專利範圍，並判定侵權不成立。

系爭專利US5,653,760關於一種管理大分子分布的技術，這是一個治療骨折的裝置，特別針對有破碎式骨折的狀況，通過抑制小分子而助長大分子，Claim 1界定一種彈性固定裝置，用在治療人類或動物組織損害的用途，裝置包括有孔的彈性材料層，可以折成立體的樣子，其中第一主要表面放在受損組織旁，第二主要表面放在受損組織相對位置上，其中有個「釋放手段」，可以將材料"具有方向性地"通過立體結構釋放到受損組織的一旁。

1. A flexible fixation device for implantation into human or animal tissue to promote healing of a damaged tissue comprising:

a layer of flexible material that is minimally porous to macromolecules, said layer having a first and second major surface, the layer being capable of being shaped in three dimensions by manipulation by human hands,

the first major surface of the layer being adapted to be placed adjacent to a damaged tissue,

the second major surface of the layer being adapted to be placed opposite to the damaged tissue,

the layer having material release means for release of an at least one treating material in a directional manner when said layer is placed adjacent to a damaged tissue,

the device being flexible in three dimensions by manipulation by human hands,

the device being capable of substantially restricting the through passage of at least one type of macromolecule therethrough.

Claim 8界定治療受損骨頭的方法，裝置部分的描述與Claim 1一樣。

8. A method of treating a damaged tissue to promote repair comprising:

a) providing a device including, a layer of flexible material that is minimally porous to macromolecules, said layer having a first and second major surface, the layer being capable of shaping in three dimensions by manipulation by human hands,

the first major surface of the layer being adapted to be placed adjacent to the damaged tissue,

the second major surface of the layer being adapted to be placed opposite to the damaged tissue,

the layer having material release means for release of an at least one treating material in a unidirectional manner when said layer is placed adjacent to the damaged tissue,

the device being flexible in three dimensions by manipulation by human hands,

the device being capable of restricting the through passage of at least one type of macromolecule therethrough,

b) placing the device adjacent to a damaged tissue,

c) whereby the placed device results in directional presentation of the at least one treating material.

專利實施的樣子如下，將材料噴塗在受損的骨頭上，所謂的裝置，相對於習知可自由進出的孔洞，可以具有方向性地遞送藥劑，可以水分子呈現在治療的區域上。


被告侵權物為Cordis的Cypher®，這是一種支架，其中具有微聚合物層的金屬網包覆在支架上，但根據網路上的資料顯示在2011年已經停產（地院判決那年），即便訴訟在2013年贏了。


在地院訴訟過程，解釋專利範圍時，作出以下幾個解釋：

(1) 對於請求項中「device」作出解釋：認為「device」這個在申請專利範圍「前言」中的用語僅是提出一個作為請求項內容限制的名稱（"a device having the limitations called out by the body of the claim"），意思是，系爭專利範圍中的"device"不是有形體的裝置，而是指出專利範圍的名稱（代名詞）。

"The district court first addressed the term “device,” which it viewed as nonlimiting preamble language that “merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim.”"

(2) 將申請專利範圍中「到大分子的微孔（"minimally porous to macromolecules"）」解釋為實質上不透水的大分子（"substantially impermeable to macromolecules"）。

(3) 將「在一個方向釋放治療材料的手段（"means for release of at least one treating material in a directional manner"）」以手段功能用語解釋，說明書對應的結構特徵是「化學鍵與鏈結」。

"“means for release” is “to release a drug preferentially toward the damaged tissue” and
defined the corresponding structures disclosed in the ’760 patent’s specification as “chemical bonds and linkages.”"

如此，地院判決"蓄意"侵權成立，以及判決一個為數不小的損害賠償。

案件經上訴到CAFC，解釋專利範圍的議題圍繞在「device」與「release means」的解釋。

這裡討論「device」的解釋：

「device」出現在系爭專利的每個請求項中，被告根據說明書內容，主張「device」並非如地院解釋僅為「前言」中涵蓋專利範圍的一個描述用語而已，而是指一個有形有體的連續薄片（continuous sheet），這個薄片（sheet）是用來隔離傷口附近大分子，並說明沒有覆蓋的網孔的支架（如上被告物品圖示）不能防止大分子進出。加上系爭專利審查過程也為了要區隔先前技術的「開放式網孔支柱（"open mesh stents"，這也剛好是被告產品的特徵）」而強調這個「device」就是一個可以隔離大分子的連續薄片。

顯然，解釋系爭專利「device」受限於說明書內容（包括圖式）與答辯歷史，無法擴及僅是功能性描述的專利特徵，而需要限定在有形有體的連續薄片上。

"We conclude that Saffran’s statements during prosecution of the ’760 patent limit “device” to a continuous sheet."

"... construe the term “device,” as used in the claims of the ’760 patent, to mean a continuous sheet andto exclude stents having open mesh holes."

根據CAFC查驗系爭專利審查歷史，確認系爭專利答辯時曾作出「device」為一薄片的解釋，並且被告產品並非連續薄片，有支架網孔。CAFC結論，同意被告主張，經過以上元件與相關專利範圍解釋，侵權不成立。

判決書：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1043.Opinion.4-1-2013.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/fs04fdfgqnl4kvt4btm23xdfh5eafj2v）

my two cents:
本案例的資訊是來自工業技術研究院「從美國訴訟淺談專利撰寫答辯及請求項用語解釋研討會」的議程所揭示的內容。

Ron