案件資訊：
IPR請願人：HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.
專利權人：OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
系爭專利：US8,437,293
IPR案：IPR2018-00816
華為對系爭專利'293提出IPR異議，經PTAB作出不啟始決定（deny institution of IPR of claims 1–4, 10– 15, and 19–23）後，華為提出復審請求（request for rehearing），理由有二：(1)PTAB誤解且忽略解釋專利範圍中用語"scheduling request"的證據；(2)PTAB誤解IPR請願書中主張先前技術如何教示系爭專利中"second SR"為單一位元信息的解釋。
根據華為的理由，PTAB認為沒有理由修改不啟始決定，駁回復審請求。
在復審請求中，若要推翻PTAB的不啟始決定，需要有充分的理由證明這個決定是錯的。（37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)）。
（重要）復審中，PTAB會再查看不啟始決定是否有濫用裁量權（abuse of discretion）的問題，所謂濫用裁量權，需要證明(1)PTAB決定錯誤解釋法條、(2)事實發現不被實質證據所支持，或是(3)衡量相關因素造成不合理判決。（37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)）。
[法條]
37 CFR § 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions.
(a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order.
(b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A panel decision on an issue will govern the trial.
(c)Petition decisions. A decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial is final and nonappealable. A party may request rehearing on a decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.
(d)Rehearing. A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. A request for rehearing does not toll times for taking action. Any request must be filed:
(1) Within 14 days of the entry of a non-final decision or a decision to institute a trial as to at least one ground of unpatentability asserted in the petition; or
(2) Within 30 days of the entry of a final decision or a decision not to institute a trial.
PTAB作出反駁華為的意見：
A. Huawei has not made a “good cause” showing for admitting Exhibits 1039–1041 with the Request for Rehearing
華為要在復審中提出新的證據，但並沒有進行事先溝通，也沒有解釋為何要在復審提出新證據，沒有正當理由。
B. We did not misapprehend or overlook certain evidence regarding the
proper construction of the claim term “scheduling request”
PTAB不認為在scheduling request解釋上有誤，並反駁從字面與一般意思來解釋，scheduling request沒有包含bit message的意思，且也合理地應以最廣而合理的方式解釋這些用語。
C. We did not misapprehend or overlook certain portions of the Petition that purportedly explain how the asserted prior art teaches or suggests a scheme where the claimed “second SR” is a single bit message
華為沒有理由要求PTAB對其中特定用語以新的內容解釋。
"If Huawei desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, it should have provided citations to those portions with particularity."
my two cents:
如此可知，在一個合法的行政程序中，若要提出與先前不同的證據或是答辯意見（新理由），都需要證明這是充分且必要，否則，程序上不容易讓官方認錯。
官方「先例&情報決定」連結：
Precedential and Informative Decisions
本篇PTAB決定：
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Huawei-Device-Co.-Ltd.-v.-Optis-Cellular-Tech.-LLC-IPR2018-00816-%28Paper-19%29.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/pv1aekgv4nbi3jt2h3ovst5hwxdbd5vw）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言