前情提要：
美國最高法院在April 24, 2018作出案例SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018)判決，意旨是：PTAB在IPR/PGR程序中應對所有被挑戰的請求項作出專利性判決。
- 根據35 U.S.C. §318(a)，PTAB應對所有IPR異議專利範圍作出專利性的判決。
法條中的「shall」很強烈地要求對全部專利範圍作出專利性判決：
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).
HELD:
"When the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it mustdecide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged. The plain text of §318(a) resolves this case. Its directive is both mandatory and comprehensive. The word “shall” generally imposes a nondiscretionary duty, and the word “any” ordinarily implies every member of a group. Thus, §318(a) means that the Board must address every claim the petitioner has challenged."
一些參考文章與資料：
- （最高法院打臉CAFC與PTAB）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)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/04/ptabipr-sas-institute-v-lee-supreme.html）
- USPTO針對最高法院SAS案決定提出過渡時期方針（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/05/usptosas.html）
- SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu：https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-969_f2qg.pdf
本案IPR上訴案討論：
AC Techs v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)案件資訊：
上訴人/專利權人：AC TECHNOLOGIES S.A.
被上訴人/IPR請願人：AMAZON.COM, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
系爭專利：US7,904,680 (IPR2015-01802)
判決日：January 9, 2019
本案緣起PTAB在IPR程序中作出最終決定（final decision)：部分請求項範圍無效，但是還有一些被提起無效請願的請求項範圍未被列於最終決定中，但這些未被無效的專利範圍經IPR請願人提出motion後，PTAB判決無效，於是專利權人AC提起上訴，理由是PTAB怠職，造成不公平的決定。
系爭專利'680關於電腦資料存取與管理的技術，看來很"抽象"的專利範圍，Amazon選擇用IPR，以102, 103作為無效理由。
1. A method for copying data over a network, the network comprising a client and a plurality of data storage devices, by receiving data from or sending data to at least one of the plurality of data storage devices, wherein the client stores a complete file of data, the file of data is divided into a plurality of individual pieces of data, the pieces of data containing parts of the file of data, and wherein one or more of the individual pieces of data are redundantly stored in the plurality of data storage devices by the client as a function of measured data transmission performance between the client and the data storage devices prior to the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving from the client, in one of the plurality of data storage devices, one of the plurality of individual pieces of data, wherein the one of the plurality of data storage devices is selected from the plurality of data storage devices based on a function of a measured data transmission performance between two or more of the plurality of data storage devices and the client;
storing, in the one of the plurality of data storage devices, the received individual piece of data;
measuring, by one of the plurality of data storage devices, a data transmission performance between the one of the plurality of data storage devices and another one of the plurality of data storage devices; and
sending, from the one of the plurality of data storage devices to the another one of the plurality data storage devices, a copy of the received individual piece of data for redundant storage as a function of the measured data transmission performance between the data storage devices and independently of an access of the client.
上述Claim 1描述通過網路複製資料的方法，也就是把客戶端與資料儲存裝置之間的一種分散儲存技術，步驟有接收客戶端資料，包括分散在不同儲存裝置的片段資料，之後儲存，再計算資料傳輸的效能，接著才開始傳送出去。
Amazon提出的前案（IEEE論文）：
PTAB階段：
在IPR2015-01802案中，Amazon提起三個系爭專利無效理由，PTAB同意啟始（institute）前兩個理由（Grounds 1, 2），否絕第三個，也發現第三個無效理由與第一個接近，僅專利範圍的不同解釋。（編按，這可能與前例SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu不太一樣，因為PTAB仍是啟始審理所有專利範圍，只是略過第三個無效理由（Ground 3））
到了最終決定，PTAB認為系爭專利claims 2, 4, 6有效，但被Amazon等人提起請求（motion），要求考慮第三個無效理由，最終就連claims 2, 4, 6都駁回專利權。
CAFC階段：
AC的主要上訴理由是，在IPR請願中的Ground 3並未被啟始，但是最終原本可以有效的範圍被未被啟始採用的Ground 3無效成功，認為PTAB越權。
CAFC引用去年最高法院在SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018)的判決，認為PTAB應對IPR中所有被挑戰的請求項作出專利性判決，如此也引用前例，認為PTAB考量所有未被啟始的專利範圍，也如同考量未被啟始的無效理由。
這裡強調，SAS案並不是取代PTAB的裁量權，主要意旨是要求PTAB能夠對每一項專利範圍根據無效理由作出充分的考量與決定，因此，CAFC認為PTAB在本案並未有違反規定，沒有越權的問題。
本次討論忽略102, 103等技術議題。最終CAFC確認PTAB決定。
my two cents:
根據本次判決，這裡提出幾個整理：
1. 提出IPR請願時，可對全部或部分申請專利範圍提出一或多個無效理由（Grounds）。
2. 啟始決定可以採用其中全部或部分的無效理由，以及決定啟始審理全部或部分的被挑戰申請專利範圍。
3. SAS案後，PTAB最終決定要對所有被挑戰專利範圍作出專利性意見。
4. 若還有沒有列在啟始決定的無效理由，請願人可以在特定時機（如有部分專利範圍未被無效）提起motion（請求），要求PTAB考慮啟始決定中未被採用的無效理由。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1433.Opinion.1-9-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/cule0z7suu1nmchn181r1t195vhdynjk）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/01/consider-claims-grounds.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言