案件資訊：
IPR請願人：AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., HULU, LLC, and NETFLIX, INC
專利權人：UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
系爭專利：US8,566,960 (IPR2017-00948)
系爭專利為可調整數位產品授權方法，涉及多產品授權使用數位產品（如軟體）的技術，條件包括數量上下限、期限等，可能授權最大數量的裝置，如果時間到，又要第二次授權，數量可能調整，此發明就是可以在授權時可以根據需要重新調整授權裝置的數量。
1. A system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time, the license comprising at least one allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices authorized for use with the digital product, comprising:
a communication module for receiving a request for authorization to use the digital product from a given device;
a processor module in operative communication with the communication module;
a memory module in operative communication with the processor module and comprising executable code for the processor module to:
verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device;
in response to the device identity already being on a record, allow the digital product to be used on the given device;
in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period, the allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices authorized to use the digital product;
calculate a device count corresponding to total number of devices already authorized for use with the digital product; and
when the calculated device count is less than the first upper limit, allow the digital product to be used on the given device.
Amazon於2017年對Uniloc的專利'960提起IPR，PTAB發出啟始對Claims 1-25的無效異議的決定，攻防雙方都提出回應。
專利權人Uniloc提出修正請願（motion to amend），以專利範圍Claims 26, 27, 28取代被啟始異議的Claims 1, 22, 25。
異議人Amazon提出反對修正的意見，PTAB在最終決定是否決專利權人提出取代原被無效啟始的請求項範圍的Claims 26-28，理由是這些範圍非法定可專利的範圍（35 U.S.C. § 101）。
然而，爭議是，「IPR的無效理由僅能涉及102, 103等具有先前技術的新穎性與進步性理由」，於是專利權人提起複審請求（Request for Rehearing），理由就是PTAB不當考量Claims 26-28是否符合101法定可專利標的（101不是IPR審查議題）。
"Patent Owner contends that we misapprehended the law and improperly considered whether substitute claims 26–28 constitute statutory subject matter under § 101."
然而，雖IPR不適合討論101議題，但PTAB這個決定是源自本案Amazon v. Uniloc曾在地方法院訴訟中法院曾作出Claims 1, 22, 25不符35 U.S.C.§101的判決（Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 797, 811 (E.D. Tex. 2017)），且在後續上訴中，CAFC也確認了這個決定（Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2017-2051 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2018)）。
專利權人回應Amazon的是，不能在IPR的motion to amend中提出有關101議題的反對意見，提出案例是「Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc)」。
過去報導：
---------------------------
- IPR程序中專利權人應證明修正後專利範圍具有專利性 - In re Aqua Products (PTAB, CAFC no.2015-1177)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/ipr-in-re-aqua-products-ptab-cafc.html）
- CAFC全院聯席決定IPR程序中可以修正 - Prolitec v. Scentair Tech (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/10/cafcipr-prolitec-v-scentair-tech-fed.html）
---------------------------
PTAB提出過去案例「Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Limited, Case IPR2012-00022 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) (Paper 166)」，在此IPR案中，PTAB是要求專利權人提出修改專利範圍具有專利性的證據，而CAFC則是解除專利權人應論述在motion to amend中可專利性的責任。
PTAB表示，上述Aqua products案明顯可知，專利權人無須擔負修正專利範圍的專利性的責任，但並沒有排除可分析這些取代專利範圍（claims 26-28）是否101規定，加上Ariosa Diagnostic案表示專利權人有責任論述101，沒有反對要考慮修正專利範圍的101議題。這部分涉及對於35 U.S. Code § 311(b)的解釋
"Although the panel in Ariosa Diagnostic noted that the burden to show patentability of amended claims required the patent owner to address § 101, the panel did not find that § 311(b) precludes us from considering the patentability of amended claims under other statutory provisions, such as § 101."
- 相關法條 -
35 U.S. Code § 311 - Inter partes review
(a)In General.—
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the review.
(b)Scope.—
A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
(c)Filing Deadline.—A petition for inter partes review shall be filed after the later of either—
(1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or
(2) if a post-grant review is instituted under chapter 32, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.
PTAB認為，雖上述311(b)規範提起IPR僅能涉及102/103議題，但沒有限制對「修正請願中取代的專利範圍」提出不可專利理由的101論述。
"It does not, however, limit the grounds of unpatentability that can be raised in response to proposed substitute amended claims presented in a motion to amend."
"In contrast to § 311(b), the statutory provision providing a right to a motion to amend, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), does not prevent us from considering unpatentability under sections other than § 102 and § 103 with respect to substitute claims."
編按，不曉得是一種勉強的講法，或是法律沒有正面表示不准的部分就是允許的意思，PTAB的意思就是，即便規定（35 U.S. Code § 311(b)）IPR僅涉及102/103議題，但是是針對提出異議時需要提出先前技術證據的規定，但卻沒有規範修正後專利範圍不能審查101議題。
在這次複審意見中，PTAB認為專利權人並沒有證明PTAB誤解法律。
因此，系爭專利在IPR中確認無效（還包括修正後專利範圍不符101的理由，on the ground that substitute claims 26–28 are non-statutory subject matter under § 101）。
PTAB決定：
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Amazon.com%20v.%20Uniloc%20Luxembourg%2C%20IPR2017-00948%20%28Paper%2034%29.pdf
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/0blj7mbc691w1s683d1iwafdu93aunm6）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言