寫下本篇的動機是，同事問了一個「時間」的問題：提出「CA（Continuation Application，接續案）」的時間規定為何？簡單的回答是，「母案」還活著的時候（pending, alive）；或說「母案」處分前，也就是獲准專利與拋棄之前；那「獲准專利」到底是指「收到核准通知」、「繳交領證費」、「專利公告」，還是收到「專利證書」？
這些問題可以簡單看，卻也可能比想像中複雜，例如，完成申請還需要符合申請日的要件、接續案還要滿足112(a)撰寫與揭露規定、申請人資格、接續案的「母案」的定義、是否有主張多個優先權、"before"是指哪一天？到期日是指當日、前一天還是後一天？。先看看相關法條。
[法條]
35 U.S.C. § 120
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.
母案的發明人或共同發明人可以提出與母案有相同效果（指優先權）的接續案，但申請日要在先前申請案（母案）「patenting」、「abandonment」或「termination」之前（before），其中還有有關修正使之符合接續案資格的規定。
-------------------------------------------
MPEP 201.07 Continuation Application
...
At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the Office.
...
申請人可以在前申請案patenting, abandonment或termination之前的任何時刻提出接續案（CA），目的是提出新的一組專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application
...
1.53(b)
(b) Application filing requirements— Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
所謂延續案（continuing application），包括CA、DIV與CIP（不含設計），取得申請日的申請案需要符合112規定的說明書，但可以不用具備申請專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------
上述規定中，似乎明確，卻又有難以定義的「before」，以下案例就是討論到「35 U.S.C. § 120中規定申請CA的期限」，事實上也能及於DIV與CIP案的申請日規定。（編按，舉例來說，before Dec. 28, 2018，應該就是指Dec. 27, 2018當日以及之前的時間，這樣似乎是頗安全的解釋；另外，我可能在一些時候將CA案翻成"接續案"或是"延續案"，CA（本篇翻"延續案"，指延續先前申請案在不能增加新事物的前提下改寫專利範圍或部分說明書內容的一種"接續案（continuing application，泛指CA、CIP與DIV等）"）
Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：IMMERSION CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人：HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利：US6,429,846（平行案：PCT/US01/01486）、US7,148,875、US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105
判決日：June 21, 2016
本案涉及的議題是延續案（Continuation Application，CA）的申請日可以溯及其先前申請案（母案或更早），但條件是在「先前申請案patenting日之前（"filed before the patenting” of the earlier application"）」，看似清楚的一句話，卻仍產生了問題：CA案等接續案必須（has to）在先前申請案獲得專利（is patented）"至少一天"前提出申請？或是，在先前申請案獲得專利（patenting）之前提出申請？
那filing可以與patenting（指領證公告(issued)）同一天嗎？
"The question is whether, for that condition to be met, the continuing application has to be filed at least one day before the earlier application is patented, or whether an application may be “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application when both legal acts, filing and patenting, occur on the same day."
系爭專利'846案的申請歷史：2000/1/19申請，2002/8/6獲准專利；同時，申請人有件內容一樣PCT申請案PCT/US01/01486（申請日：2001/1/17），在2001/7/26公開（WO 01/54109）。在2002年8月之後，申請人Immersion提出一系列'846的接續案（35 U.S.C. § 120），但其中有一件爭議，就是後來獲准為US7,148,875的申請日為「2002/8/6」，即為其先前申請案'846的「領證公告日（issued date）」。另一平行的專利家族發生在WO ’109的接續案：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，說明書內容與'846家族一致。
US6,429,846「領證公告日（本案議題中的patenting date/patented date）」：2002/8/6
根據PAIR記錄，這個patenting date是USPTO登記「Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed」的日期，這天是：「領證費繳交（官方確認）後，發出領證通知後，官方記錄獲准專利權的那天」。
US7,148,875「申請日（filing date）」：2002/8/6
-訴訟把問題都掀開了-
專利權人Immersion於2012年對HTC提出侵權告訴，系爭專利為：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，被告HTC主張系爭專利無效，理由是這幾件的母案WO'109內容已經揭露於'846案中，不符35 U.S.C. § 102(b)規定。
其中議題是，因為Immersion提出了兩個平行的專利家族，如果這幾件對HTC提告的系爭專利'720、'181、'105無法溯及'875與'846的先前申請日優先權時，即彼此之間無法建立35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係時，可能就無法克服其另一平行專利家族WO'109已經揭示的內容導致的缺乏新穎性核駁理由。
這時，關鍵就是「中間是否有斷鏈」，也就是，'875案是否與'846保持著35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係？（'875案filing date ＝ '846案的patenting date）
根據地方法院的觀點，'875案不符35 U.S.C. § 120規定「filed before the patenting of '846 patent's application」，因為'875案的申請日就在'846案的領證公告日（patenting date）當天。這樣使得後案'875不能溯及前案'846案的申請日（2000/01/19），更導致本訴訟中系爭專利都面臨缺乏新穎性的無效威脅中（因為WO'109已經揭示所有特徵）。
原告Immersion提出上訴，挑戰地院對於35 U.S.C. § 120中「before」的解釋。
法院對這段的理解是，文意上並未規定後申請案申請日可以與前申請案取得專利（領證公告）的時間為「同一天」，反倒規定在領證公告「前（before）」才是！但其實法條並未規定所謂「前」或「後」是以「天（day）」為單位，這個理解就讓35 U.S.C. § 120有了模糊的解釋空間，也就讓法官解釋起來可以讓後申請案申請日與前申請案領證公告的「同一天」。（編按，也就是，在"同一天"也會發生"filed before the patenting"的情況，法條並未禁止「before」發生在同一天）
就一般理解，「before」的規定是「前一天」就要完成，特別是指CA、DIV、CIP等接續案的申請期限是在「母案處分前」，而且是「前一天或之前」。這也是被告HTC的主張。
爭議就是「before」是否可解釋為「on or before」?
一般認知是，on or before就是兩個時間的概念（二分法），on the same day，以及before the day，但法院認為"二分法"不是解決這個「時間關鍵」的方式，法律上相對嚴謹。（編按，也就是法院的視野不是如一般認定的單純，特別是涉及法定日期的問題，否則，也不會有本篇報導的需求！）
-歷史-
就美國法院而言，「歷史」的定義有決定性的影響，也就是過去的判決、判例或解釋都是要列入考慮，對於1952年開始施行的35 U.S.C. § 120，在它之前美國最高法院在案例「Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 317 (1864)」的意見中，因為針對「優先權日」的解釋建立了「same-day」的觀念。在Godfrey案例中，這位老兄先撤銷了一件先前提出申請的專利申請案，「同一天」重新提出了一個經過修改的申請案，法院對此意見是，如果申請人撤銷了自己的申請案，意欲是要同時提出新的請求（新的申請案），對於申請人而言，這兩個動作（petitions）應視為同一個「處置（transaction）」，法律上可視為連續的申請案（"both as constituting one continuous application, within the meaning of the law"），法院採取的解釋是，將較早申請案的優先權日提供給後續申請案（"giving the earlier application’s priority date to the successor application"）。
如此，產生了「同一天前後動作視為關聯而連續」的規則，也是後來法院採用的規則。也就成為1952年施行35 U.S.C. § 120的接續案的制度。
USPTO隨著也訂定37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)：
1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
(a) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or an international application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and this section.
...
這個規定在提出取得先前申請案優勢的接續案時，並未排除「同一日/天」的情況。這裡也涉及要求後申請案要在「前後案copending」時提出申請的基本要件，續根據MPEP 211.01(b)規定，關於前後案為「copending（同時待審）」狀態的規定，這裡夠明確地提到："If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application."，就是如果先申請案公告為專利時，對於後申請案來說，如果在同一天或之前提出申請，仍符合「前後案copending」的要件。
MPEP 211.01(b) Claiming the Benefit of a Nonprovisional Application
I. COPENDENCY
When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application or with an intermediate nonprovisional application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application. If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application. See Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., 826 F.3d 1357, 1359, 119 USPQ2d 1083, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2016), holding that a child application was entitled to the benefit of a parent application where the child application was filed on the same day that a patent issued on the parent application. Patents usually will be published within four weeks of payment of the issue fee. Applicants are encouraged to file any continuing applications no later than the date the issue fee is paid, to avoid issuance of the prior application before the continuing application is filed.
...
答案已經出現：後申請案，如CA、DIV、CIP案，提出申請的最後期限是所倚賴的「先前申請案（母案）」的領證公告日（同一天/日）（same-day continuations/filing was before patenting within a single day）。
-實務-
因為「patenting date（領證公告日）」有「不容易預期」的問題，若申請人有接續案佈局的需求，USPTO應通知先前申請案（母案）的預期領證公告日（expected issuance date）。
因此，可以在先前申請案（母案）核准通知、繳交領證費、接獲領證通知時，還可提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案；甚至，到最後官方登記領證公告日的當日或之前提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案都還來得及。
my two cents:
看來簡單的「before」仍是有解釋空間，因為法律（35 U.S.C. § 120）文意上並未以「日」為單位，雖似咬文嚼字，但也是站在申請人/發明人的立場，實質是法官給了我們更寬廣的空間。
不曉得這個判決認定的「before」是否可以適用其他法規上，所以，很多規定是寫為"before or on the same day"，甚至還故意註解排除「同一天」，例如：
MPEP 609.04(b) Timing Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement
...
II. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FILED AFTER I. ABOVE BUT BEFORE MAILING OF FINAL ACTION, NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE, OR AN EX PARTE QUAYLE ACTION (37 CFR 1.97(C))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed after the period specified in subsection I. above, but prior to the date the prosecution of the application closes, i.e., before (not on the same day as the mailing date of any of the following:
...
本篇是新年2019年第一篇PO文，聖經有句話：「忘記背後，努力面前的（腓立比書3:13）」，英文：「forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead.」，這句話砥礪我們，不論過去如何，前面的（真理）才是我們要努力的。
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1574.Opinion.6-17-2016.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/kv64zt77ctk4yx5lab5qvbuhbqblt166）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/patentees-includes-afterwards.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言