一般已知在母案的基礎上提出「再領證（reissue）」是要「重開審查程序」，目的之一是可以再次"實質"修正專利範圍，甚至包括「擴張專利範圍」，還可以藉此繼續佈局後續專利，另一目的是，作為訴訟前的準備（例如，發現專利範圍不夠好到可以告贏對手，即提再領證"優化"專利），也包括再次檢驗專利權。
案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人：FORUM US, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
被告/上訴人/專利權人：FLOW VALVE, LLC, AN OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
系爭專利：RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)
判決日：June 17, 2019
本案於專利權人Flow Valve於地院對被告Forum提起侵權訴訟開始，地院法官判定系爭專利無效，理由是系爭專利為「再領證」專利，但是專利範圍並未被其母案所揭露，專利權人上訴CAFC。
[再領證法條] 35 U.S.C. § 251
35 U.S.C. 251 REISSUE OF DEFECTIVE PATENTS
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)關於油氣公司需要的工具，工件支撐組件的主體包括內部工具組件通道，以及這些通道連接的開口，有支撐此主體的結構，加上多個由主體支撐的心軸（arbor），每個心軸具有軸，與延伸部的一個基準軸重合。這個結構可以在車床上旋轉時利用心軸來保持工件。
RE45,878的Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
a workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body member having an internal workpiece channel, the body member having a plurality of body openings communicating with the internal workpiece channel;
means supported by the body member for positioning a workpiece in the internal workpiece channel so that extending workpiece portions of the workpiece extend from selected ones of the body openings;
a plurality of arbors supported by the body member, each arbor having an axis coincident with a datum axis of one of the extending workpiece portions; and
means for rotating the workpiece supporting assembly about the axis of a selected one of the arbors.
Claim 14（Reissue新增"workpiece supporting assembly"，減少了元件："arbor"）：
14. A workpiece supporting assembly for securing an elbow during a machining process that is performed on the elbow by operation of a workpiece machining implement, the workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body having an internal surface defining a channel, the internal surface sized to receive a medial portion of the elbow when the elbow is operably disposed in the channel; and
a support that is selectively positionable to secure the elbow in the workpiece supporting assembly, the body pivotable to a first pivoted position, the body sized so that a first end of the elbow extends from the channel and beyond the body so the first end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process, the body pivotable to a second position and sized so that a second end of the elbow extends from the channel beyond the body so the second end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process.
母案Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
a workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body member having an internal workpiece channel, the body member having a plurality of body openings communicating with the internal workpiece channel;
means supported by the body member for positioning a workpiece in the internal workpiece channel so that extending workpiece portions of the workpiece extend from selected ones of the body openings;
a plurality of arbors supported by the body member, each arbor having an axis coincident with a datum axis of one of the extending workpiece portions; and
means for rotating the workpiece supporting assembly about the axis of a selected one of the arbors.
本案主要爭議是「再領證」案通過修正新增的專利範圍Claim 14等，在最大範圍Claim 14中相對於母案專利範圍刪除了元件"a plurality of arbors"，如以下元件58與60：
法院與被上訴人（原侵權被告）都提出系爭專利說明書揭露了以兩個心軸作為固定中心的設計：
在再領證案中，專利權人通過修正擴增了專利範圍，讓所主張的工件支撐組件不用心軸（arbor）也可以，但也引來專利不被原母案申請時揭露內容的無效理由。如此，地方法院認為再領證案的專利範圍不被母案說明書支持。
提出最高法院標準"Industrial Chemicals and Antares"：
在CAFC審查時，考量了35 U.S.C. § 251規定，雖法條同意專利通過再領證程序擴增專利範圍，但法院認為，當再領證案提出了新的且經擴增的專利範圍，相關的專利範圍的要求並不能僅被原本說明書、圖式或模型所建議或指出（suggested or indicated）而已，更應該出現（appear）在原本專利中（可能是建構了發明的部分），被原本專利所涵蓋。
"(“To warrant new and broader claims in a reissue, such claims must not be merely suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or models, but it must further appear from the original patent that they constitute parts or portions of the invention, which were intended or sought to be covered or secured by such original patent.”"
如此，法院認為經過擴增專利範圍的再領證案，應不僅於要求"建議或指出（suggest or indicate）"再領證發明而已！而是要「出現（appear）」在被原本說明書涵蓋的"表面"。
"Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “it must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.”"
換句話說，原專利應該要明確而無誤地揭露新的再領證發明。
"the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.”"
即便專利權人主張相關領域一般技術人員可以從說明書中理解所述「心軸」為一個選擇性元件，但法院仍認為「在專利說明書或其圖式中沒有揭露發明中的「心軸」為可選擇的特徵」，即便相關領域一般技術人員可以理解該發明可以不用「心軸」，判決再領證案不符合「Industrial Chemicals and Antares」標準。
my two cents:
再領證案因為提供專利權人可以擴增專利範圍的機會，但可理解地應該要給予更嚴格的要求，本篇雖是針對再領證案，但是仍可學到：(1)說明書反覆強調的特徵不能被忽略；(2)說明書可以加入更多可能性，將來專利範圍可以更多彈性；(3)一般專利審查可以從相關領域一般技術人員可理解的方向調整，但是再領證案可能要用「the same invention」的標準來看。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1765.Opinion.6-17-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/h6rayxy4cigcw8j6ng8nqy4h6b7s2yjy）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/heightened-description-standard.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言