有關發明人
Heat Technologies, Inc. v. Papierfabrik August Koehler SE (Fed. Cir. 2019)此案例關於上訴程序中有關28 U.S.C. 1292(b)的議題：訴訟中的決定（Interlocutory decisions），其中關於「誰是發明人（inventorship）」的爭議！
案件資訊：
原告：Heat Technologies, Inc.
被告/目前專利權人/請願人：Papierfabrik August Koehler SE
系爭專利：US9,851,146
本案緣起2018年Heat Tech對Koehler提出侵權告訴，原告Heat Tech向喬治亞聯邦法院提起更正「發明人」（35 U.S.C. § 256），主張系爭專利的發明人有誤，更主張因為這個錯誤產生的不當得利與損害賠償。
其中涉及的是訴訟中的中間議題（28 U.S.C. 1292(b)），就是在訴訟中提起另一個法律問題，若有充分理由，可以終止訴訟。
US9,851,146關於一種乾燥纖維材料的機器，發明人為Heat Tech的老闆Plavnik，當年將此發明告訴了Koehler，作為合作評估的目的，認為系爭專利的內容幾乎都是當時告訴Koehler的內容。
Heat Tech在地方法院提起「專利無效/缺乏新穎性與非顯而易見性」，以及要求更正發明人、拿回專利權、on-sale bar，以及要求不當得利與損害賠償。但是Koehler要求法院撤銷Heat Tech的請求，認為Heat Tech請求不當，不能一方面主張專利無效，一方面又要求更正發明人。
主要議題是，Koehler要求(1)撤銷Heat Tech更正發明人的請求；(2)引用35 U.S.C. § 256，認為此法不能同時用於更正發明人，又在此基礎下主張專利無效，還有on-sale bar。
地方法院同意Koehler請願，同意在28 U.S.C. 1292(b)規定下終止訴訟，有三個條件：
Section 1292(b) requires three criteria for certification:
(1) the otherwise non-appealable order must be one that “involves a controlling question of law”;
(2) “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”; and
(3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
(1)除非不可上訴的法院命令包括了控制性法律議題；（本案沒有）
(2)對不同意見的歧異有實質（上訴）理由；
(3)對法院命令立即上訴可以促使終止訴訟。
因此，地院同意Koehler終止地院訴訟而上訴CAFC，其中並非要解決「誰是發明人」，而是要確認一個法律議題：可否在確認發明人證明為真時，又可同時主張專利無效？
雖然CAFC不認為他們需要審理這個上訴議題，因為條件不滿足28 U.S.C. 1292(b)成立的三項條件，但仍作出一些意見，包括，認為地方法院正確地作出「儘管專利權有效有其他挑戰，但仍可進行發明人更正議題」決定。
也就是說，35 U.S.C. § 256更正發明人的規定並未與其他專利無效議題有關，法院作出發明人更正決定也不是建立在專利權有效的前提。
"the court’s jurisdiction under § 256 does not depend on whether the patent may be shown to be invalid."
前例：
[相關法條]
28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.
35 U.S.C. § 256 Correction of named inventor
(a)Correction.—
Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.
(b)Patent Valid if Error Corrected.—
The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.
參考資料：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/inventorship-challenges-invalidity.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言