有關35 U.S.C. § 285返還律師費用的充分條件 - Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)

有關35 U.S.C. § 285返還律師費用的充分條件 - Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
被告/被上訴人：TREND MICRO INCORPORATED, TREND MICRO INC. (USA)
系爭專利：US5,987,610, US6,073,142, US6,460,050, and US7,506,155
判決日：December 19, 2019

本案緣起原告Intellectual Ventures於2010年對Trend Micro與Symantec等公司提起專利侵權訴訟，由於各系爭專利關於軟體專利，因此被告提起專利不符適格性的請願，地院在專利適格性上判斷系爭專利'142、'050不符35 U.S.C. § 101規定，CAFC另也認為'610不具可專利性。

於是地院先撤銷對Trend Micro的訴訟。被告Trend Micro（prevailing party）接著提起返還律師費用（5 U.S.C. § 285）的請願，結果地院判斷，在訴訟過程中，原告的專家證人改變了證詞，當中符合規定中的「例外情事」，因此判決原告應返還被告美金「$444,051.14」。

5 U.S.C. § 285
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.

原告/上訴人不滿在地院訴訟後（敗訴）判決返還律師費用的決定，提起上訴。

根據被告公司即可知，系爭專利關於防毒、確保文件安全與避免違法（侵害著作權）的相關技術，針對電信（電子傳送、電子郵件）傳送的數據進行防毒與確保內容安全的措施，因為系爭專利橫跨美國專利"5"字頭、"6"字頭與"7"字頭，因此可以看看各個年代對於軟體專利的寫法，在此僅列舉，並不代表這是寫法的討論，也不見得是訴訟標的。

US5,987,610

1. A virus screening method comprising the steps of:
routing a call between a calling party and a called party of a telephone network;
receiving, within the telephone network, computer data from a first party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party;
detecting, within the telephone network, a virus in the computer data; and

in response to detecting the virus, inhibiting communication of at least a portion of the computer data from the telephone network to a second party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party.

US6,073,142

1. A post office for receiving and redistributing e-mail messages on a computer network, the post office comprising:
a receipt mechanism that receives an e-mail message from a sender, the e-mail message having at least one specified recipient;
a database of business rules, each business rule specifying an action for controlling the delivery of an e-mail message as a function of an attribute of the e-mail message;
a rule engine coupled to receive an e-mail message from the receipt mechanism and coupled to the database to selectively apply the business rules to the e-mail message to determine from selected ones of the business rules a set of actions to be applied to the e-mail message; and

a distribution mechanism coupled to receive the set of actions from the rule engine and apply at least one action thereof to the e-mail message to control delivery of the e-mail message and which in response to the rule engine applying an action of deferring delivery of the e-mail message, the distribution engine automatically combines the e-mail message with a new distribution list specifying at least one destination post office for receiving the e-mail message for review by an administrator associated with the destination post office, and a rule history specifying the business rules that were determined to be applicable to the e-mail message by at least one rule engine, and automatically delivers the e-mail message to a first destination post office on the distribution list instead of a specified recipient of the e-mail message.

US6,460,050

1. A file content classification system comprising:
a plurality of agents, each agent including a file content ID generator creating file content IDs using a mathematical algorithm, at least one agent provided on one of a plurality of clients;
an ID appearance database, provided on a server, coupled to receive file content IDs from the agents; and

a characteristic comparison routine on the server, identifying a characteristic of the file content based on the appearance of the file content ID in the appearance database and transmitting the characteristic to the client agents.

US7,506,155

1. A method for protecting a network from a virus contained in an e-mail message as executable code, the method comprising:
receiving the e-mail message;
converting the executable code from an executable format to a non-executable format by using an application-level process which retains an appearance, human readability, and semantic content of the e-mail message; and

forwarding the non-executable format to a recipient of the e-mail message.


CAFC針對285條規定的判決：

35 U.S.C. § 285主要議題是，整件訴訟是否符合「exceptional case（例外情事）」，也就是一般來說，訴訟雙方各自承擔法律上的費用，但是如果有敗訴一方符合「例外」的條件，就可能會判賠勝方法律費用。

首先，要看的是「各方在訴訟中的實質力量（substantive strength of a party's litigating position）」或是當中是否有不合理的事情，當判斷是否符合需要返還律師費用的「例外」時，應逐案來審，並以整體環境來考量。

"An exceptional case “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing" law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”

相關案例：地方法院有決定律師費誰付的裁量權 - Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html）

CAFC採用「濫用職權標準（abuse-of-discretion standard）」來審視地院的判斷。相關案例如「Highmark Inc. v. Allcare (Supreme Court 2014)」：

上訴法院應以abuse-of-discretion標準來審視地方法院所做出特殊案子的決定。此處"abuse-of-discretion"標準(濫用裁量權)是指地方法院應該依照證據說話，避免錯誤判斷。

"The abuse-of-discretion standard does not preclude an appellate court’s correction of a district court’s legal or factual error."

當地院判斷原告提起訴訟是否為客觀地不合理時，因為原告證人在訴訟中修改證詞即作出「不合理」的結論，且僅以當中一部分"stand out"於其他案件（僅根據專家證詞的改變），即作出符合"例外情事"的判斷，因此CAFC認為地院這個分析並不適當。

CAFC認為不能僅以案件的一部分"例外（特殊）"就判斷返還一部分費用，應仍以整體來看。



結論：CAFC法官在這個"法律"議題中認為地院並沒有應用適當的標準即判原告應返還律師費用


判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1122.Opinion.12-19-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/o2zmnpiwx7aqlrgz9tgjldftrv3im1gb）

有關35 U.S.C. § 285訴訟後是否返還律師費用的案例：
- 不願和解妥協的NEWEGG的勝利方程式 - AdjustaCam v. Newegg (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/07/newegg-adjustacam-v-newegg-fed-cir-2017.html）
- 陪審團不能判賠律師費用 - AIA America v. Avid Radiopharma (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/12/aia-america-v-avid-radiopharma-fed-cir.html）
- 東德州法官用律師費打擊Patent Troll（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/12/patent-troll.html）
- 美國法院要NPE律師自己負擔法律費用 - Gust vs Alphacap Ventures and Richard Juarez（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/03/npe-gust-vs-alphacap-ventures-and.html）
- 結合專利與商標的訴訟以及返還律師費的標準 - Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/11/romag-fasteners-v-fossil-fed-cir-2017.html）

資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/12/section-exceptional-insufficient.html

Ron

請求項的撰寫規定 - MPEP 608(i)

筆記

說怎麼寫專利說明書，包括申請專利範圍，MPEP 608, 608.01與這些事息息相關。（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html）

MPEP 608.01(i)~(n)規定有關申請專利範圍的撰寫方式。MPEP 608.01(j)規定請求項的編號、MPEP 608.01(m)有關請求項的格式、MPEP 608.01(n)規定附屬請求項怎麼寫。

各種附屬項寫法可參考：About claims XI - MPEP Section 608.01(n)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/10/about-claims-xi-mpep-section-60801n.html）

MPEP 608.01(m) Form of Claims
（https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e45061.html）

The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).

「申請專利範圍」撰寫以一分開的頁面開始，以「I (or We) claim」開始，或可以「The invention claimed is」開始，每項範圍以大寫開始，句點結束，一句話原則。句點不能用在其他地方，但「縮寫」除外，且每行元件以縮開撰寫。

There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.

對次組合可以有多重縮排，公告內容會依據這些格式，但應可用費用避免太複雜的排版。

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. The use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims.
Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.

專利範圍中可使用元件符號，並以括號表示，這些不影響專利範圍。在申請時，或是第一次審查答辯前，如果申請人加入細節可以減輕審查的困難。

Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.

請求項撰寫應群組化，產品與程序的專利範圍應分別組別，可以方便分類與審查。

The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e)  is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.

根據37CFR1.75(e)規定，這是改良發明的寫法（兩段式），前言部分的內容仍會被讀入專利範圍中。

For rejections not based on prior art, see MPEP § 706.03.
The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.

有些非基於先前技術的核駁意見，即對於申請專利範圍的形式問題：
(1)申請專利範圍並非分頁（separate sheet）提出。
(2)申請專利範圍的小錯誤，如拼錯字、不一致的用語，如果這些錯誤造成不明確，為112核駁。
(3)有些錯誤可以要求審查委員修正，如沒有用元件符號沒有放在括號中。
(4)若申請專利範圍中行與行太擁擠造成不易閱讀的問題，會提出修正要求。

Ron

關於不違反EPC Art.123(3)的圖式修正訴願案例 - T 236/12

EPO案例 T 236/12 （https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t120236du1.html）

[本案原文為德文，以下報導為依照Google英文翻譯的內容]

本案為歐洲專利無效異議案，案件資訊：
專利權人：Behr France Rouffach SAS
異議人：RENAULT s.a.s.
系爭專利：EPO Patent No. 1,728,658

系爭專利關於具有兩個鼓風機的汽車冷氣：


異議人提出的主要引證前案：D01: EP-A-0 867 319, D04: FR-A-2 750 461, 以及D16: EP-A-1 520 991，列舉我比較看得懂的前案圖示：


根據訴願決定，在口審（Oral proceedings）議題中，其中之一為兩方費用分擔，而本篇主要討論為「圖式修正」的議題。

專利範圍第1項描述汽車冷氣中雙鼓風機的機構，有馬達、兩個可移除縱向葉輪（impellers）、進氣口、風扇馬達等結構，為了要滿足技術特徵與範圍，專利權人（無效答辯）提出圖式置換。

為了要擴大專利範圍，申請人提出原始附圖（因為沒有太多細節）置換核准時的圖式，但原始圖式因為品質不好，沒有結構細節，但反而擴大了能解釋的專利範圍。

（可參考：歐洲與美國核准前修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_25.html））

不過，這個變更可能會使得相關領域技術人員以較廣的圖式來解釋專利範圍，卻又不同於「核准時圖式」描述的實施例特徵，範圍又更廣了。

非但如此，也導致專利範圍解釋的困難度，影響發明的可實施性。

我撈出系爭專利原始送件的圖檔（01.06.2005）：




後來被要求換上品質比較好的圖式（16.09.2005）：




從以上審查歷史的變動可知，申請人為了要克服「形式上」的缺失提出了品質較好的圖式，卻「感受到專利範圍被限縮」的壓力。

無效異議人主張，根據Art. 83 EPC揭露規定，說明書應明確而完整揭露到讓相關領域技術人員可以實現的程度，專利權人修正的圖式不僅可能讓專利範圍不明確或解讀過廣，還可能無法實施。

Article 83 Disclosure of the invention
The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. 

專利權人反駁，主張修正符合規定（Art. 123(3) EPC），認為專利範圍是否被擴大，根據Art. 69 EPC，應是申請專利範圍的文字而定。並主張相關領域技術人員要實施系爭案發明並沒有問題。

Article 69 Extent of protection
(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. 

(2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the claims contained in the application as published. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition, limitation or revocation proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended. 

歐洲訴願決定：

專利權人提出的修正為將原始送件圖式置換核准時圖式，這並無違法。

關於專利範圍的解釋（Art. 69 EPC）以及修正是否實質超出（Art. 123(3) EPC），訴願委員會表示以原始圖式置換核准時圖式並沒有得出專利範圍有擴大的問題，也就是圖式置換為品質不好的原始送件版並沒有實質影響專利範圍的解釋，也沒有擴大範圍的疑慮。

（編按，這至少是一個合理的判斷，但是為何要置換，感覺專利權人是希望能夠不要以圖式細節來限縮專利範圍的解釋，因此提出置換，而客觀地來看，這個變動並不影響專利範圍。）

"In the present case, the board cannot see that the scope of protection of the patent is extended if the substitute drawings are used instead of the drawings published with the patent specification to interpret the claims."

（編按，以下摘錄可為本案的重點）

圖式中不見的細節不會擴大專利範圍。

"... it does not conclude that the loss of information has extended the scope of protection of the patent."

並且，所漏失的技術資訊為次要特徵，不會影響專利範圍。

"The lost technical information relates to minor design details that do not affect the scope of the present claims."

因為專利範圍所描述的技術特徵已經足夠，且連結到原申請時圖式，使得相關領域技術人員可以明確地"想像"專利要保護的客體。

"Because the technical features of the claims are detailed and detailed enough in the description in conjunction with the original drawings, those skilled in the art can still clearly imagine what is protected and what it should look like."

將圖式置換到原始圖式仍符合Art. 123(3) EPC修正規定，因為相關領域專家可以理解其中技術特徵。

"The replacement of the drawings by the original drawings does not constitute a violation of Article 123 (3) EPC in the present case, because the expert can still understand with the changed drawings, like all technical features of the now determining the scope of protection claimed double fan assembly can be accomplished."

就訴願委員而言，修正後的圖式並沒有產生新而會擴大專利範圍解釋的問題。

"With regard to the interpretation of the claims, the amended drawings do not open up new, expanded possibilities of interpretation for the Chamber, nor do they raise new questions with regard to the clarity of the claims."

關於置換為原始送件的圖式，會不會有不明確的問題，這裡沒有答案，因為歐洲擴大訴願委員會並未作出應該要檢查圖式是否影響專利範圍明確性的決定。

總而言之，這個換回原始圖式的動作沒有讓相關領域技術人員有不能實施的疑慮，也不會影響專利範圍的解釋，就是符合修正規定。

EPO Case Law
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_e_2_4_10.htm

2.4.10

Replacement of drawings 

In T 236/12 the drawings published in the patent specification had been replaced by those originally filed. Although the published drawings had disclosed technical information not derivable from those originals, their replacement did not broaden the scope of the patent. The technical features of the claims were explained in sufficient detail in the description, as read together with the originals, so the skilled person could still get a clear idea of the protected subject-matter and how it should look.

Ron

PCT Articles 19 與 34 修正筆記

PCT Articles 19 與 34 修正筆記

PCT：
PCT條文：https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.html
（這個HTML版本很好使用）

施行細則：https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/rtoc1.html

Guidance on how to file amendments under Articles 19 and 34（依據PCT第19條和第34條提交修正案的指導方針：https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/amendments_19_and_34.html）

原則上，當接獲PCT檢索報告，其中若有利申請人，不一定要回應；若判斷不具備新穎性或進步性，可以依據PCT Art. 19修正，或是依據PCT Art. 34修正後請求作出Preliminary Examination。

EPC Art. 19修正：

• 這是修正國際階段的申請案專利範圍的條款。
• 修正時機為接獲PCT檢索報告以及國際檢索機關（International Search Authority）的初步意見之後（因為其他原因而沒有收到檢索報告，不能修正）。
• 修正提交PCT國際局（International Bureau）。
• 修正的說明書語言即如國際申請案公開的語言：Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian or Spanish。
• 依據Art. 19提出的修正必須在「優先權」日後16月內，或接獲檢索報告後2個月內（比較晚的為期限，而且，當不在這些期限內提出修正時，若仍在國際公開的準備期之前，仍可受理）。
• 當案件進入國家階段（ national phase），如果已經有提交過Art. 19修正，應提出原申請專利範圍或修正後申請專利範圍的翻譯，並可包括聲明。
• 修正，須提交完整的修正後申請專利範圍替換版本，指出與原申請案的差異，以及修正基礎，與聲明（不一定要）。
• 修正可包括：刪除專利範圍、新增專利範圍，或請求項文字部分。
• 修正後申請專利範圍應重新編排號碼。

EPC Art. 34修正：

這是修正國際階段的申請案說明書、圖式與專利範圍的條款，且須附帶提出國際初步審查（international preliminary examination）。

• 提交修正時， 除了說明書、圖式與申請專利範圍修正外，還可提交說明與申請時的差異。
• 修正語言應與公開本內容一致。
• 同時請求preliminary examination。
• 若修正與相關說明不符規定，國際初步審查機關不會受理。
• 其他可參考Art. 34。
• 之後即準備進入國家階段。

-----------------------------------------
PCT Art.19規定請求範圍的規定
(1)於接獲國際檢索報告，申請人可在規定時間（如上）內提出修正（此條僅用於修正申請專利範圍），同時可以提交簡要的說明，為的是解釋修正。
(2)修正不得超出申請時揭露內容。

（https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a19.html#_19）

Article 19 - Amendment of the Claims Before the International Bureau
(1) The applicant shall, after having received the international search report, be entitled to one opportunity to amend the claims of the international application by filing amendments with the International Bureau within the prescribed time limit. He may, at the same time, file a brief statement, as provided in the Regulations, explaining the amendments and indicating any impact that such amendments might have on the description and the drawings.
(2) The amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed.
(3) If the national law of any designated State permits amendments to go beyond the said disclosure, failure to comply with paragraph (2) shall have no consequence in that State.

PCT Art.34規定在國際初步審查中的程序，其中讓申請人在審查報告作出前有權修正請求項範圍、說明書與圖式（此條不限制修正專利範圍，並還請求作出preliminary examination，可能不同於檢索報告隨附審初步意見）。

（https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a34.html#_34）

Article 34
Procedure Before the International Preliminary Examining Authority

(2)(b) The applicant shall have a right to amend the claims, the description, and the drawings, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time limit, before the international preliminary examination report is established. The amendment shall not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed.

相關報導：
- PCT進入美國階段的主動修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/05/pct.html）
- PCT程序與修正規定討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/01/pct.html）
- PCT案的修正時機（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2011/10/pct.html）

Ron

歐洲與美國核准前修正筆記

歐洲核准前修正筆記

接獲到歐洲專利核准通知，有時會附帶著審查委員修正建議，這類修正常常是很小的問題，應該不會影響實質而且審查委員可以自為修正，但會通知申請人、代理人確認，申請人還是可以回絕修正建議（試試看！）。

這修正建議大約關於：
(1) 申請前文件缺漏。
(2) 要求將先前技術記載於說明書「relevant prior art」的內容中。
(3) 說明書部分段落應與答辯修正後Claims一致。
(4) 要求修正或刪除說明書中無意義內容（如常見於美國專利說明書中的前後宣告文）。
(5) 請求項中技術描述、拼字、文法與誤繕等小問題。

（編按，以上一些修正要求不見得會每次都遇到，當美案版本可能會被直接拿去申請歐洲案時，會產生這些問題，而有時是不容於部分審查委員的，或是時機點特別，例如直接核准案，可能這些問題會被提出；檢索報告後轉到審查部門而可直接獲准時，也可能遇到。）





相關法條：
- Rule 42(1) EPC

歐洲專利的撰寫規定（Rule 42(1)(b)）也規定發明人因為欲讓其他人理解該發明而應揭露已知背景技術（可參閱：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/06/epc-rule-42.html），較佳則應引述有關該背景技術的文件。
EPC Rule (1) (b)

indicate the background art which, as far as is known to the applicant, can be regarded as useful to understand the invention, draw up the European search report and examine the European patent application, and, preferably, cite the documents reflecting such art;

- Art 84 EPC

Article 84 Claims

The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.

EPC第84條
若專利範圍標的與該案發明不符，則可能以歐洲專利法第84條核駁：
The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.
（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2011/03/epc84.html）

- Rule 48(1)(c) EPC

Rule 48 Prohibited matter
(1) The European patent application shall not contain: 
(a) statements or other matter contrary to "ordre public" or morality; 
(b) statements disparaging the products or processes of any third party or the merits or validity of the applications or patents of any such party. Mere comparisons with the prior art shall not be considered disparaging per se; 

(c) any statement or other matter obviously irrelevant or unnecessary under the circumstances. 
（https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r48.html）

- Art 123(2) EPC

EPC Art. 123(2)規範申請人於修正時不得超出原申請時揭露內容。

EPC Art.123 AMENDMENTS
(1) The European patent application or European patent may be amended in proceedings before the European Patent Office, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. In any event, the applicant shall be given at least one opportunity to amend the application of his own volition.
(2) The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed.

(3) The European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers.


案例與相關報導：
- 歐洲專利"揭露無法支持"專利範圍的核駁案例討論 - EP Appeal T 1195/09

（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/06/ep-appeal-t-119509.html）

- 要求修正說明書補入先前技術 - 歐洲訴願T 0011/82（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/05/t-001182.html）

- 歐洲專利說明書修正（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post_16.html）
- 修正到未被檢索的專利範圍的討論 - 歐洲訴願T 1636/12（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/04/t-163612.html）


順便補充美國專利核准前修正通知（Ex Parte Quayle action）：
-----------------------------
收到專利「核准前修正通知（Ex Parte Quayle）」，這應該是個很不錯的通知，一般是簡單修正（且不影響實質權益）即可獲准，不過，仍有因為太隨便產生日後主張權利的損失，這...還是要小心。另外，這個期間也關於何時可提出IDS、延續案、臨時案譯本等的時機。




本部落格相關報導：
- Quayle Action案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/11/quayle-action.html）
- 設計答辯歷史造成的問題 - Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/10/curver-luxembourg-sarl-v-home.html）

- 美國專利修正規定（MPEP714）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/07/mpep714.html）
-----------------------------

Ron

圖式修正筆記

從MPEP 1413 Drawings、，可以查得怎麼送美國專利圖式的規定，這裡特別著重在「圖式修正」，以下規定適用一般申請案，以及再領證（reissue）申請案。（這些筆記都是感謝與同事之間討論的回應）

- 37 C.F.R. 1.173 / 37 C.F.R. 1.121

美國實用（發明）專利申請案送件後，圖式為說明書的一部分，應該要一併提出，之後若有需要修正，修正的圖式應標示「Replacement Sheet」，新增圖式標識「New Sheet」，並將修正事項註解在回應（答辯）書中，即便只有一張圖要修/加，但也需要一併將其他圖式附上。

"...Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended...."

可以附上「Annotated Sheet」，作為解釋圖式修改的附圖的標記副本（marked-up copy），用以解釋圖式修正的意思。可以應審查委員要求提出「marked-up copy」。

- 37 CFR 1.84: STANDARDS FOR DRAWINGS

圖示標準規定在37 CFR 1.84。

一個範例：
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf

Replacement sheet


Annotated Sheet：用來說明修正的內容。



其他參考：
- 37 CFR 1.121(d) - 圖式修正（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/10/37-cfr-1121d.html）
- 美國設計專利修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/blog-post_15.html）


[法條]
MPEP 608.02(p) Correction of Drawings
....

MPEP 1413 Drawings

A clean copy (e.g., good quality photocopies free of any extraneous markings) of each drawing sheet of the printed patent must be supplied by the applicant at the time of filing of the reissue application. If the copies meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84, no further formal drawings will be required. New drawing sheets are not to be submitted, unless some change is made in the original patent drawings. Such changes must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3).

AMENDMENT OF DRAWINGS

The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) govern the manner of making amendments (changes) to the drawings in a reissue application. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending drawings:

(A) Amending the original or printed patent drawing sheets by physically changing or altering them is not permitted. Any request to do so should be denied.
(B) Where a change to the drawings is desired, applicant must submit a replacement sheet for each sheet of drawings containing a Figure to be revised. Any replacement sheet must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word "Amended" at the bottom of that figure. Any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be identified as "Canceled" and also surrounded by brackets. All changes to the figure(s) must be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet which accompanies the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
(C) If desired, applicant may include a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made. Such a marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Marked-up Drawings", and it must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
In addition, the examiner may desire a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, and so state in an Office action. A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.

(D) If any drawing change is not approved, or if any submitted sheet of drawings is not entered, the examiner will so inform the reissue applicant in the next Office action, and the examiner will set forth the reasons for same.

相關CFR：
37 C.F.R. 1.121 MANNER OF MAKING AMENDMENTS IN APPLICATIONS.
*****

(d) Drawings. One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84 or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled "Replacement Sheet." Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as "New Sheet." All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.
(1) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
(2) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.

*****

37 C.F.R. 1.173 REISSUE SPECIFICATION, DRAWINGS, AND AMENDMENTS.
*****
(a)
(2) Drawings. Applicant must submit a clean copy of each drawing sheet of the printed patent at the time the reissue application is filed. If such copy complies with § 1.84, no further drawings will be required. Where a drawing of the reissue application is to include any changes relative to the patent being reissued, the changes to the drawing must be made in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The Office will not transfer the drawings from the patent file to the reissue application.
*****

(b)
(3) Drawings. One or more patent drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
*****

37 C.F.R. 1.85 CORRECTIONS TO DRAWINGS.

(a) A utility or plant application will not be placed on the files for examination until objections to the drawings have been corrected. Except as provided in § 1.215(c), any patent application publication will not include drawings filed after the application has been placed on the files for examination. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (§ 1.135(c) ). If a drawing in a design application meets the requirements of § 1.84(e), (f), and (g) and is suitable for reproduction, but is not otherwise in compliance with § 1.84, the drawing may be admitted for examination.
(b) The Office will not release drawings for purposes of correction. If corrections are necessary, new corrected drawings must be submitted within the time set by the Office.

(c) If a corrected drawing is required or if a drawing does not comply with § 1.84 or an amended drawing submitted under § 1.121(d) in a nonprovisional international design application does not comply with § 1.1026 at the time an application is allowed, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a three-month period of time from the mail date of the notice of allowability within which the applicant must file a corrected drawing in compliance with § 1.84 or 1.1026, as applicable, to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c) ).

Ron

與時俱進的專利政策 - 新加坡加速審查A.I.相關專利

與時俱進的專利政策 - 新加坡加速審查A.I.相關專利

新加坡政府在2017年明確指出人工智能（Artificial Intelligence）的國家發展計畫，目標是建立一個A.I.新加坡，具體方案之一是，繼曾提出金融科技加速方案後，新加坡專利局自2020年1月1日開始加速有關「人工智能」的相關專利審查（AI2）。

• 適用申請日從26 April 2019後兩年內的申請案。
• 加速審查，可以6個月內取得審查結果。
• 但一年僅限定前50件適用加速審查（編按，因此，應該是對A.I.專利的定義很嚴，或是初期小看了這個領域的發展），但...數量會依照實際狀況評估。
• 限定新加坡為第一國申請案。
• 有相關表格要填！（這點，因為嚴謹的關係，文書作業常常是很煩的（需要！），相對於A.I.時代，還是挺落後的）
• 申請專利範圍不能超過20項。
• 申請後，若收到形式審查結果（有問題），要於兩週內回覆。
• 接獲實質審查意見，應於兩個月內答覆。
• 如果有支持專利確實為A.I.相關發明的文件，應於申請時提交。

資料來源：Nanyang Law LLC
（感謝同事分享）

my two cents:
有關人工智能的專利佈局，不妨可以考慮進入新加坡，並擴及東協國家，相關專利策略可參考過去部落格報導（label：https://enpan.blogspot.com/search/label/Singapore）：
（編按，以下有些內容涉及「新加坡補充審查」，這個補充審查制度已經廢除）

- 新加坡的專利競爭力 - 用專利學地理（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html）
- 再探ASPEC（筆記）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/08/aspec.html）
- 新加坡與國際申請案筆記 - 專利與商標佈局（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post.html）
- 新加坡的臨時申請案（provisional application）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/12/provisional-application.html）
- 東協專利制度介紹 - 東協國家專利申請討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/12/blog-post_25.html）
- 新加坡專利申請筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-post_13.html）
- 新加坡專利實務筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/04/blog-post_21.html）
- 新加坡金融科技專利加速審查計畫 (FinTech Fast Track)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/07/fintech-fast-track.html）
- 新加坡臨時申請案：新加坡臨時申請案筆記（二）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post_14.html）；新加坡臨時申請案筆記一（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/07/blog-post_27.html）


相關新聞：
新加坡AI策略：
https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-singapore/?cn-reloaded=1

新加坡國家AI策略，分為五個方向：運輸和物流、智慧城市和財產、醫療保健、教育以及安全保障：
https://www.smartnation.sg/why-Smart-Nation/NationalAIStrategy

A.I.管理框架：
https://www.imda.gov.sg/AI

AI Singapore：
https://www.aisingapore.org/

Ron

拋棄權利範圍的程度 - Techtronic Indus. v. ITC and Chamberlain Group (Fed. Cir. 2019)

一般常識是，專利審查歷史、說明書與權利範圍內容用來解釋專利範圍時，多多少少會限制專利範圍的解釋，也避免專利權人不當擴張範圍，但是，專利權人到底拋棄了多少範圍（disavowal of claim scope）？本案討論有關專利權人到底拋棄了權利範圍到達了甚麼程度？

本案討論系爭專利範圍中揭露的車庫門開啟器中的紅外線偵測器是否一定要置入在壁掛式主機中？這與專利權人拋棄了多少範圍而定！


案件資訊：
上訴人：TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OWT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET TECHNOLOGY (WUXI) CO. LTD.（簡稱TTI）
被上訴人：INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION（簡稱ITC）
參加人/專利權人：THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.
系爭專利：US7,161,319, US7,339,336 and 7,196,611
判決日：December 12, 2019

本案緣起The Chamberlain Group於ITC提起對TTI的侵權調查（section 337(a)(1)(B)），被告侵權物為「車門開啟裝置」。系爭專利US7,161,319關於可移動關卡（barrier）控制器，這個控制器傳出訊號，以控制車門開啟裝置，第一開關傳輸關卡指令，用以開啟或關閉可移動關卡；第二開關傳輸指令以給電至光源（受控紅外線感測結果）。



1. An improved garage door opener comprising 
a motor drive unit for opening and closing a garage door, said motor drive unit having a microcontroller 
and a wall console, said wall console having a microcontroller, said
microcontroller of said motor drive unit being connected to the microcontroller of the wall console by means of a digital data bus.

ITC最後判決一受限排除命令（limited exclusion orders），並對TTI等發出停止進口的命令。

同樣地，在侵權判斷中，需要解釋專利範圍，解釋專利範圍中主要爭議是其中一個元件「wall console」（字面翻譯為壁掛式主機），依照專利範圍，其中包括微控制器，通過數位匯流排連結以控制馬達。

侵權是否成立，各說各話，因為關於如何判斷「拋棄權利範圍的程度」？

根據歷史，專利權人Chamberlain曾經排除先前技術而主張在此Wall Console中設有紅外線偵測器，並且說明書也僅有這個實施態樣，因此ITC的行政法官ALJ認定此wall console為壁掛式，且包括了紅外線偵測器。如此，之後判斷是否侵權時，作出了侵權不成立的結論。

案件之後經ITC委員會審視後，還參考了US6,737,968（為系爭案母案，用此案揭露內容證明專利權人沒有想要將紅外線偵測器置入console中），否決了ALJ的決定，認為說明書實施例不應用來限制專利範圍，ITC委員會認為專利權人是否在審查歷史中明確地拋棄其他解釋，這仍有待確認。ITC最後結論是「侵權成立」。

TTI等上訴CAFC。

CAFC查看證據時，先以35 U.S.C. § 112規定開始，規定專利說明書應能推定出專利範圍所指明確的權利主張，揭露內容應符合準確而明確的要求。

判斷侵權議題時，解釋專利範圍中文字的意思時，說明書為主要參考依據，加上上訴人主張專利權人在審查歷史為了要區隔先前技術，已經有排除其他範圍（constitutes a disavowal of claim scope），且專利說明書也僅有一個實施例：壁掛式主機包括了紅外線偵測器！

專利權人主張歷史與說明書內容並沒有"那麼多"否決掉想要主張的權利範圍，主張："Chamberlain contends that the ’319 patent’s characterization of the invention does not rise to the level of a disavowal of claim scope."

所述議題為「level of a disavowal of claim scope（拋棄權利範圍的程度）」如何衡量？

很特別地，ITC委員會認為：系爭專利的母案'968的專利範圍明確地指出紅外線偵測器要設置於壁掛式主機中，以此認為，表明專利權人在本次系爭專利想要有"更廣"的權利要求，也就沒有指明紅外線偵測器的位置。

"The Commission adds that the claims of the parent ’968 patent are expressly directed to garage door openers that locate the passive infrared detector in the wall console, indicating the patentee’s intention to seek broader claims in the instant patent, without specifying the location of the passive infrared detector."

然而，CAFC法官並不這樣認為，反而是同意上訴人TTI（侵權被告）主張專利權人Chamberlain拋棄了壁掛式主機沒有紅外線偵測器的範圍，且在"Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)"案例提出解釋專利範圍的原則下，認為系爭專利的專利範圍界定出紅外線偵測器就是要在壁掛式主機內。

"Claim terms are normally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)."

本部落格參考：
- 合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html）

法官提出要判斷「拋棄專利範圍的程度（disavowal of claim scope）」應要清楚（clear），如果卻不必多明確（need not be explicit），原則是："disavowal"可以從清楚的發明說明書與審查歷史的限制得出。這裡列舉前例"Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc."與"Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc."，此案中，專利說明書中沒有教示相關特徵對於發明是重要、必要而關鍵（important, essential, or critical）的，這樣，就不見得達到「拋棄專利範圍」的程度。




要達到「拋棄專利範圍」的程度，例如為了要區隔先前技術所作出的disavowal。解釋專利範圍的目的是得出發明真正的範圍，並判斷是否說明書實施例定義出發明的限制，或是僅是舉例而已，這需要仔細判斷。

再者，當ITC委員會認為雖然專利權人在審查歷史中對於前案的車庫門開啟器作出評論，但不一定是"拋棄"了範圍，說明書也沒有說紅外線一定要設置在哪裡！

CAFC法官（很睿智）認為，即是「評論先前技術」是否會產生「拋棄範圍」的效果，還是要依據內部證據而定，也就是說明書、審查歷史等。就本案來看，說明書明白地表達了發明的範疇，也排除了一些實施例（沒寫），但也不表明被排除的實施例為不可實施（infeasible）或是不可能（impossible）。




就以上原則，回到本案，CAFC法官認為很難判斷ITC委員會判斷是否拋棄範圍的標準為何？但就系爭專利'319的說明書揭露內容而言，明確地表示為了要改善車庫門開啟器而將紅外線偵測器移出head unit並置入wall console，因此拋棄了在wall console中可以沒有紅外線偵測器的範圍，否決ITC委員會意見，認為侵權不成立。



my two cents:
這件學習到幾件事：
1. 專利範圍原則上不會被說明書揭露的實施例所限制，即便是僅有一個實施例，至少美國法官這樣想。
2. 但過程中可知，僅有一個實施例會被拿來做文章，如果可能，就提出第二個（或以上）實施例，避免被不當限縮範圍。
3. 答辯過程中如果刻意貶低或評論先前技術（為了拿到專利），可能都是拋棄相對的範圍的舉動。
4. 但即便評論了先前技術，就本案來看，法官不一定認為這是拋棄，要看內部證據而定！
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2191.Opinion.12-12-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/xr4yvm8lpg732liqjqxo9y257whnti0v）

Ron