Gilbert Hyatt擁有許多美國專利（70+）以及許多正在審查的美國專利申請案（400+），而驚人的是，這些pending的美國專利申請案都是在1995年6月8日前的申請案，並且都引用1970年代的優先權日。
這是甚麼概念？「西元1995年6月8日」前的美國專利法保障每件美國專利在「核准後有17年的專利權」，而在此日之後申請的美國專利期限規定是「申請日後20年」，過渡時期可以選擇其中「時間較長者」。
本部落格曾有討論：
- 因為藥品檢驗延遲而延長的專利權期限討論 - Merck v. Kessler (Fed. Cir. 1996)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/04/merck-v-kessler-fed-cir-1996.html）
- Terminal Disclaimer影響了專利期限！（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/05/terminal-disclaimer.html）
- CPA vs. RCE（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/11/cpa-vs-rce.html）
- 專利期限討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post.html）
- 潛水艇專利與保密令（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/10/blog-post_31.html）
- 蓄意侵權案例討論 - Bard Peripheral v. W.L. Gore. (Fed. Cir. 2015)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/03/bard-peripheral-v-wl-gore-fed-cir-2015.html）
- 100多年前的NPE（patent troll典型特徵）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/05/100npepatent-troll.html）
前言：
「西元1995年6月8日」之後因為失去專利權17年保障，也開始有「Terminal Disclaimer」與美國臨時申請案（provisional application）等措施。然而，當時如果「濫用」法律17年專利權的保障，就會有「潛水艇專利」產生的隱憂，以上「潛水艇專利與保密令」一文就是例子。
本案例的主角Gilbert Hyatt一直讓他的專利可以「活著」，而持續在USPTO/PTAB中來往，但也持續受到阻礙，此案即走到CAFC階段，因此比較算是「浮上檯面」讓大家見識見識。
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt v. USPTO案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：GILBERT P. HYATT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT, INC.
被告/被上訴人：UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ...etc.
系爭案：400 pending patent applications
判決日：September 24, 2018
Gilbert Hyatt的專利申請案一直在USPTO被阻擾，或說互相干擾，USPTO還因此組一個專案小組（12位全職審查委員）來應付Gilbert Hyatt的訴願案件，也逐一否決Gilbert Hyatt的訴願理由，也有案件上訴CAFC。這樣的來回曾於2015有個CAFC判決，要求專利申請人Gilbert Hyatt限制旗下每個專利家族的專利範圍到600項，並協助識別出每個專利範圍的優先權日期（畢竟案件量大與歷史悠久，需要申請人協助）。
當年案件回到USPTO，專利局重新開啟審查（reopen），而不是在訴願階段。
這裡的爭議涉及5 U.S. Code § 553(e)與MPEP 1207.04，Hyatt主張5 U.S. Code § 553(e)中有權提出領證、修正或撤銷等請願的規定，甚至要求廢除MPEP 1207.04中讓專利審查委員依據新證據"重啟（re-open）"審查的權利。
事實上，USPTO對於這麼龐大的老案也是疲於應付，包括引用新的引證案的核駁意見，專利申請人是要在官方規定的期限回覆，但是官方意見（OA）卻沒有期限，USPTO在眾多往來的OA也造成許多延遲。最後還要求Hyatt減少專利範圍的數量，並指出優先權關聯性，（雖有抗議）最後由USPTO重啟其中80件申請案繼續審查。
USPTO否決Hyatt的請願主要理由是認為Hyatt不合理地以訴訟延遲專利審查。
此案中，Gilbert Hyatt對USPTO提告，主張USPTO不法拒絕Hyatt的請願，案件在地院被法官否決（lack subject matter jurisdiction，缺乏司法管轄），案件繼續到CAFC。
CAFC階段：
上訴議題包括Hyatt挑戰MPEP 1207.04（"Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal"），因為這是造成USPTO審查延遲的來源，並牴觸其他法律（指35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1)），認為應該廢除這條MPEP。
就是Hyatt主張USPTO不能隨意reopen prosecution來阻止appeal。
（重要）首先，法院聲明解釋法條的原則，就是先從字面（文字與結構）意思來解釋，如果字面清楚，就用字面一般意義解釋，而沒有特殊情況。因此35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1)經法院解釋，認為不同於Hyatt的理解，字面顯得沒有規定PTAB一定要審理每件申請上訴的案子，也就是，回到本案，PTAB可以拒絕審理訴願案，而回到USPTO重啟審查。
因此，CAFC判決USPTO拒絕Gilbert Hyatt上訴並非武斷與任性（"arbitrary and capricious"），因此確認地院在此議題上同意USPTO的簡易判決的決定，但不同意地院因為缺乏司法管轄而否決Gilbert Hyatt上訴的決定。
其實，政府機構在法定與憲法授權下違反自己的規則。
"This challenge is not “substantive” because an agency can violate its own regulations while remaining within its statutory and constitutional authority."
[相關法條]
5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making
...
(e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
35 U.S. Code § 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
...
(b)Duties.—The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall—
(1) on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents pursuant to section 134(a);
(2) review appeals of reexaminations pursuant to section 134(b);
(3) conduct derivation proceedings pursuant to section 135; and
(4) conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews pursuant to chapters 31 and 32.
...
MPEP 1207.04 Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal
The examiner may, with approval from the supervisory patent examiner, reopen prosecution to enter a new ground of rejection in response to appellant’s brief. A new ground as used in this subsection includes both a new ground that would not be proper in an examiner's answer as described in MPEP § 1207.03, subsection II and a new ground that would be proper (with appropriate supervisory approval) as described in MPEP § 1207.03, subsection III. In deciding whether to reopen prosecution or to add a new ground of rejection to an examiner's answer where proper under MPEP § 1207.03 et seq., examiners and their supervisors should consider the degree to which the rejection previously of record is being changed, any previous reopenings after appeal brief, and the overall pendency of the application. The Office action containing a new ground of rejection may be made final if the new ground of rejection was (A) necessitated by amendment, or (B) based on information presented in an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) where no statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) was filed. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Ordinarily any after final amendment or affidavit or other evidence that was not entered before must be entered and considered on the merits as part of the action reopening prosecution. Where more than one after final amendments that conflict with each other were filed, e.g., the same claim is replaced by more than one amendment with new proposed claims of differing scope, than the first amendment should be entered and the subsequent amendments should not be entered.
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1722.Opinion.9-24-2018.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/zx5kllv42uhgoy7wwsh7rjo2h7exjitp）
參考資料：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/09/challenge-reopening-prosecution.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言