PTAB應對所有提起IPR的請求項作出最終決定 - SAS Institute v. Lee (Supreme Court 2017)

前言：
本篇為從眾多「尚未發布」的文章中撈出，依照35 U.S.C. § 318(a)，PTAB應對所有提出異議的權利項作出終判，覺得本部落格在針對昨天（美國時間4/24）美國最高法院作出的決定發布內容前，應該要先「完成」本篇報導，避免「補資料」前後時間倒置的奇怪狀態（雖然偶爾會這樣，追蹤案件還頗為花時間，特別是有些文章寫到一半就被遺漏了）。

當有人提出IPR異議程序，PTAB僅同意啟始（institute）系爭專利的部分申請專利範圍，CAFC判定PTAB僅需據此審理被啟始的申請專利範圍，參考前例：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）。

這個議題頗為特別，也確實有點疑慮（這是在幾個月前已經有此疑慮，本次算一次解決），因為當異議人對某個專利所有專利範圍提起IPR異議程序，但僅有部分被啟始（institute）審理，是否就表示未被啟始的專利範圍具有專利性？

前次CAFC判決說，是的，但是疑慮是，在IPR初步審查時並未"仔細"審查每項專利範圍的專利性，而應該僅是"初步判斷"？如此，如何判定具有專利性？這確實有點問題。總有人幫我們釐清這個問題，這回，異議人SAS不符CAFC（包括聯席法官）決定，上訴最高法院。

SAS Institute v. Lee (Supreme Court 2017)

請願人SAS Institute Inc.要求最高法院要調卷重審（writ of certiorari）的理由：
I. The Federal Circuit's Decision is Contrary To Section 318(a), And To The America Invents Act And Its Purposes
II. The Question Of Section 318(a)'s Proper Interpretation Is Squarely Presented In This Case And Critically Important To The Orderly Administration Of The Nation's Patent System

爭議中的法條為規範PTAB決定的35 U.S.C. § 318(a)，本條"字面上"規定PTAB應對IPR請願中"每一項"所挑戰的申請專利範圍（"any patent claim challenged by the petitioner"）的專利性作出最終決定。

最高法院在4/24回應了，一些報導會寫在下一篇。

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-969_f2qg.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/6i17tbld8ehgbfgsw3ri7j5674dkkxw0）

[涉及法條35 U.S.C. § 318(a)]

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.

資料參考（有最高法院意見檔案）：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/02/written-decision-challenged.html

Ron