案件資訊：
上訴人/IPR異議人：GOOGLE LLC
被上訴人/專利權人：KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
系爭專利：US6,772,114（IPR2017-00437）
判決日：October 23, 2019
本案例關於IPR程序的正當性議題，顯得IPR是個很嚴肅的準訴訟程序（程序凌駕實體），PTAB同意啟始Google對系爭專利提起的IPR異議程序，卻查Google並未證明系爭專利範圍為不可專利（102, 103），過程中，針對系爭專利的特定元件（high-pass filter），原本主張此元件已揭示於引證案中，之後改變主張認為這是顯而易見的元件，但是時機點有誤，被PTAB認為這個改變的主張（已揭露->顯而易見）讓專利權人Philips沒有公平而有意義的機會來回應（did not have a fair and meaningful opportunity to respond）。
Google上訴CAFC。
系爭專利關於高頻與低頻音訊編解碼系統，在一個音訊傳輸系統中，傳輸器將輸入訊號切分為兩個波段，並分別編碼，其中低頻訊號以一般窄頻編碼器處理，高頻訊號使用輸出LPC（線性預測編碼）碼與訊號幅度碼的編碼器處理；在接收器中，以窄頻解碼器重建低頻訊號，高頻訊號則是使用「高通濾波器（high pass filter）」重建為白噪聲，並以LPC濾波器調整訊號。之後可以重組高低頻訊號產生輸出訊號。
有關系統的描述如Claim 10，包括一對傳輸器與接收器。
10. A transmission system, comprising:
a transmitter including
a splitter for splitting up a transmission signal into a low frequency signal within a low frequency range and a high frequency signal within a high frequency range, the low frequency range being lower than the high frequency range,
a first coder for deriving a first coded signal within the first frequency range from the low frequency signal, and
a second coder for deriving a second coded signal within the high frequency range from the high frequency signal;
a receiver in electrical communication with said transmitter to receive the first coded signal and the second coded signal, said receiver including
a first decoder for sequentially applying a narrow-band decoder, an up-sampler and a low-pass filter to the first coded signal to generate a first reconstructed signal within the first frequency range, and
a second decoder, wherein, based on the second coded signal, said second decoder sequentially applies a high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an amplifier to a noise signal to generate the second reconstructed signal.
根據CAFC判決書，提到其中爭議是：先前技術Tucker揭露的low-pass filter與反射步驟是否就是系爭專利的high pass filter？
[揭露議題]
在解釋專利範圍時，系爭專利的high pass filter傳送了在截止頻率（cutoff）以上的頻率訊號並實質減弱其他訊號。Google主張Tucker的low pass filter與reflection steps就如同系爭專利的high pass filter。
不過PTAB否決，CAFC法官也同意，認為Google所提的先前技術並未揭露系爭專利這個特徵，因為Tucker並未傳送高頻訊號。
[功效議題]
這時，Google轉為主張Tucker的low pass filter與reflection steps達成了與high pass filter一樣的結果。這樣，CAFC法官不同意，因為Tucker採用了low pass filter，表示他放棄了高頻內容，不是Google講得那樣。（編按，這可能可說是反向教示的概念）
"Though the design of a high-pass filter may include a low-pass filter, the inclusion of a low-pass filter does not alter the functionality of the high-pass filter."
"Tucker’s low-pass and reflection process only transmits the portion of the input signal that is below a cut-off frequency."
Google主張PTAB濫用其裁量權，不處理其轉為顯而易見的主張。在此上訴議題中，CAFC仍站在PTAB的一邊。
結論：
CAFC判決PTAB拒絕考量異議人提出顯而易見性議題的決定（因為超出原IPR議題範疇）符合其裁量權。
"We find that the Board was within its discretion in declining to consider this obviousness theory that was outside the scope of the petition for inter partes review."
my two cents:
提出任何訴訟主張最好在第一時間確定好議題，訴訟中或是審理過程中改變議題，即便是新穎性議題改為進步性議題，都可能影響決定，這要小心啊！（編按，訴訟中改變主張，或是議題，都有可能"惹惱"法官或當事人吧！）
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2213.Opinion.10-23-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/bjtsikofyg3jwj1qjhbb6768j3q5py44）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/10/federal-circuit-argument.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言