案件資訊：
上訴人/IPR請願人：MEDTRONIC, INC.
被上訴人：MARK A. BARRY
系爭專利：US7,670,358, US7,776,072 (IPR2015-00780, IPR2015-00783)
本案緣起兩件類似的IPR的專利性決定（IPR的起源是在2014年Medtronic被告侵權的訴訟），在Medtronic提出的IPR異議中，提出兩件先前技術：1) 美國專利公開第2005/0245928號、(2)一本整型外科手術的文獻：The Spine (2d ed.) (MTOS)，以及(3)一些影片與投影片。
PTAB在IPR終判確認系爭專利的專利權，因為Medtronic並未證明系爭專利範圍不具專利性。然而，其中爭議是，是否Medtronic提出有效的「先前技術（prior art）」（一些投影片、影片）？顯然，Medtronic不服PTAB決定，提出上訴。
系爭專利US7,670,358關於一種治療脊椎側彎的技術，Claim 1界定一種通過調整椎骨改善脊柱偏離的方法，其中描述在脊椎中安裝脊柱螺釘的過程。
1. A method for aligning vertebrae in the amelioration of aberrant spinal column deviation conditions comprising the steps of:
selecting a first set of pedicle screws, said pedicle screws each having a threaded shank segment and a head segment;
selecting a first pedicle screw cluster derotation tool, said first pedicle screw cluster derotation tool having first handle means and a first group of pedicle screw engagement members which are mechanically linked with said first handle means, each pedicle screw engagement member being configured for engaging with, and transmitting manipulative forces applied to said first handle means to said head segment of each pedicle screw of said first set of pedicle screws,
implanting a each pedicle screw in a pedicle region of each of a first group of multiple vertebrae of a spinal column which exhibits an aberrant spinal column deviation condition;
engaging each pedicle screw engagement member respectively with said head segment of each pedicle screw of said first set of pedicle screws; and
applying manipulative force to said first handle means in a manner for simultaneously engaging said first group of pedicle screw engagement members and first set of pedicle screws and thereby in a single motion simultaneously rotating said vertebrae of said first group of multiple vertebrae in which said pedicle screws are implanted to achieve an amelioration of an aberrant spinal column deviation condition;
selecting a first length of a spinal rod member; wherein one or more of said pedicle screws of said first set of pedicle screws each includes:
a spinal rod conduit formed substantially transverse of the length of said pedicle screw and sized and shaped for receiving passage of said spinal rod member therethrough; and
spinal rod engagement means for securing said pedicle screw and said spinal rod member, when extending through said spinal rod conduit, in a substantially fixed relative position and orientation;
extending said first length of said spinal rod member through said spinal rod conduits of one or more of said pedicle screws of said first set of pedicle screws; and
after applying said manipulative force to said first handle means, actuating said spinal rod engagement means to secure said vertebrae in their respective and relative positions and orientations as achieved through application of said manipulative force thereto.
進入CAFC，主要爭點是IPR異議人Medtronic提出的先前資料（影片、投影片）是否為公眾可取得（publicly accessible），而為適格的102先前技術？（編按，符合102規定的先前技術，才能引用作為103規定顯而易見性審查意見）
系爭專利的關鍵技術是Claim 1中以斜體底線標註的步驟，其中描述「同時接合第一組椎弓根螺釘接合部件和第一組椎骨螺釘」，以操作第一手柄部件，以單一運動同時旋轉第一組多個椎骨中的椎骨，使得將椎弓根螺釘植入，能改善脊椎側彎的狀況。（參考google翻譯）
有關專利性討論，就先理解上述三個不同類型的先前技術，專利公開案與一般書籍文獻的日期是比較容易判斷，但有關影片與投影片，爭議在，Medtronic宣稱這些資料在2003年的會議中公開，其中手術也曾在2001年施行。
不過，在IPR階段，PTAB認為，即便有這些會議，但這些文件並非是公眾可取得的內容，不是35 U.S.C. § 102規定的「printed publication」（出版品），因此拒絕列為前案參考。
------------------------------------------------
一些參考：
pre-AIA 102（本篇適用）
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
...
（其他）有關post-AIA 102相關文章可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/01/102.html。
35 U.S.C. 102 CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.--A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
（阻礙申請案新穎性的條件：公開在前，也就是在申請案有效申請日之前，發明已被專利、印刷公開、公開使用、販售或其方式讓公眾知悉）
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
（阻礙新穎性的條件：申請在前的美國或WIPO案，也就是在申請案有效申請日之前，發明已被領證專利描述、專利申請案早期公開）
------------------------------------------------當CAFC審理系爭專利的專利性時，考量了所有的證據，基本上，同意PTAB對於前兩個證據（專利、書籍）的判斷：'928與MTOS不足以證明系爭專利為顯而易見。
爭議剩下："Whether the Board Erred in Concluding that the Video and Slides Were Not Accessible to the Public" ?
根據被上訴人與PTAB意見，這些影片與投影片都是相關組織的會員才能取得，僅讓專家取得而用於研究，並非是一般技術人員能公開取得（"not publicly accessible to ordinary skilled artisans"）。
這時，CAFC引述前例，如：
- "Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)"：
“The ‘printed publication’ provision of § 102(b) ‘was designed to prevent withdrawal by an inventor . . . of that which was already in the possession of the public.’”
- "Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)"
“This rule is grounded on the principle that once an invention is in the public domain, it is no longer patentable by anyone.”
- "Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348"
“Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).”
- "Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008))"
“A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it.’”
（重點一）跟證據能力有關，Medtronic有責任證明這些證據為"有興趣的公眾"可以公開取得的「printed publication」！
（重點二）法官說明，所謂「printed publication」，如果在發布時已經"充分散布"（"sufficiently disseminated"），不需要在發布後能輕易被搜尋到（這不是要件）。
（重點三）如本案中Medtronic宣稱相關影片、投影片等證據在幾個會議中已經公開，但並非傳統認定為圖書館中經過索引（indexed）而可搜尋（searchable）的文獻，如果這些資料已經在當下"充分散布"（以電子形式），即便這些並非經過索引而可搜尋，仍可視為「printed publication」。
（重點四）問題是，這些證據（影片、投影片）在會議當時有否"充分散布"？
法官提出一個案例"Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia (MIT)"，其中提到某會議中口頭發表的論文是散布給現場有興趣的專家，如此仍被視為「printed publication」。
（重點五）因此，相關文獻是否是「自由地被散布」給有興趣的群組成為判斷先前技術是否是「printed publication」的關鍵因素，這裡還提到「6」這個數量，如果沒有被限制散布給至少6個人...。
（重點六）還是有些例外，例如，有些列為「機密」的文件，即便在某會議中呈現，不會被視為「printed publication」。
（重點七）對於某些會議呈現的參考文獻，如投影片，被限制不得複製與散布給公眾，在此情況下，是否是「printed publication」，法院提出幾點考量：(1)展示的時間；(2)受眾的專業程度；(3)相關材料不得被複製的合理期待；(4)這些材料是否可以輕易被複製。
(1) “the length of time the display was exhibited,”
(2) “the expertise of the target audience” (to determine how easily those who viewed the material could retain the information),
(3) “the existence (or lack thereof) of reasonable expectations that the material displayed would not be copied,” and
(4) “the simplicity or ease with which the material displayed could have been copied.”
回到本案，由於PTAB並未如此考量相關影片與投影片證據是否被充分散布等的因素，因此CAFC駁回PTAB對這個議題的意見，要求PTAB必須考量是否能與其他兩個先前技術結合而判斷系爭專利的顯而易見性。
my two cents:
我想，「printed publication」在定義上「與時俱進」，涵蓋電子散布的文獻，但是「公開時間」證明還是最重要的。還有，多少也有些"比例原則"，散布給多少人也可能成為關鍵因子，如果限於某些"少數"人，仍難以列為有效前案吧！
CAFC判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1169.Opinion.6-8-2018.1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/4imd2gb1a3b5qk120ozpo143z8hrrf9y）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/06/defining-printed-publication.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言