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：
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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
沒有留言:
張貼留言