案件資訊：
上訴人/原告：RETURN MAIL, INC.
原被告：UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.
系爭專利：US6,826,548
判決日：June 10, 2019
系爭專利關於處理無法順利遞送信件的方法，而被告USPS是聯邦郵政局，USPS當時先對系爭專利提起Ex parte reexamination，但USPTO確認專利有效。原告之後在專門處理聯邦政府訴訟的「Court of Federal Claims」提起專利侵權訴訟，USPS此時對系爭專利提出CBM異議程序。
US6,826,548「System and method for processing returned mail」：
Claim 1：
1. A method for processing a plurality of undeliverable mail items comprising the steps of:
encoding data including intended recipient identification information on each of a plurality of mail items prior to mailing;
receiving those items of the plurality of mail items that are returned as being undeliverable;
scanning and decoding the encoded data on the items of undeliverable mail to identify intended recipients having incorrect addresses; and
electronically transferring to the sender information for the identified intended recipients for the sender to update the sender's mailing address files.
此案中，Return Mail對美國郵政服務（USPS，聯邦政府的部門之一）提出侵權告訴，USPS即對系爭專利提出CBM異議請願，結果PTAB作出系爭專利為非可專利的標的（ineligible subject matter）的決定，專利權人上訴CAFC，被聯邦法院確認專利權無效的決定。
這個議題涉及何謂「person」？
相關定義在1 U. S. C. §1。
案件進入美國最高法院，最高法院作出的決定指出因為「政府不是人」，不能對專利提出IPR/PGR/CBM異議。
這裡也提到一個「政府不是人」的理由，AIA程序排除聯邦機構可以避免專利權人需要在聯邦機構捍衛專利權的尷尬。
"Excluding federal agencies from AIA review proceedings also avoids the awkward situation of having a civilian patent owner defend the patentability of her invention in an adversarial, adjudicatory proceeding initiated by one federal agency and overseen by a different federal agency."
本案結論：最高法院判決中，以6-3的比例確認「政府不是人」，因此不能在PTAB/USPTO提出IPR請願。
其中依據是35 U.S.C. 311對於IPR規定，只要不是專利權人，任何人可以對專利提起IPR/PGR/CBM請願（"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"）。
[相關法條]
1 U. S. C. §1
§1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
35 U.S.C. 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 issuance of a reissue 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.
相關異議措施與法條：
(1) “inter partes review,” §311;
(2) “post-grant review,” §321; and
(3) “covered-business-method review” (CBM re-view), note following §321.
最高法院判決書備份：https://app.box.com/s/h7sn6ar4jd7ljivpq6720qcsw9q70t9a
my two cents:
這是有影響的判決（最高法院判決），表示專利權人對政府部門提出告訴後，政府部門卻不能以IPR等程序作出反擊（其他方案：Ex parte Reexamination、訴訟當庭提出專利無效請願），這樣會不會讓大家都很樂意對政府提告，只因為政府不是人！
有興趣者可以看最高法院判決書後的反對意見！
其他有關與政府部門的專利訴訟報導：
- 美國政府說自己不會是美國專利的侵權者（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/10/blog-post_12.html）
- 告美國政府 - 法院意見可能太過分，但專利仍無效 - American Innotek v. U.S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/01/american-innotek-v-usa-fed-cir-2017.html）
- 美國聯邦索賠法院 - Court of Federal Claims（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/08/court-of-federal-claims.html）
本篇最高法院案件資訊：https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1594.html
資料參考：
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_Mail_Inc._v._United_States_Postal_Service
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/government-therefore-petitions.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言