2019年11月29日 星期五

提起IPR的時間標準、遊戲的103議題 - Game and Technology v. Wargaming Group (Fir. Cir. 2019)

如果要異議一件「遊戲專利」,IPR...可惜不能主張不可專利事項,僅能針對102, 103議題,這就來比證據力了!順便看看「遊戲專利」怎麼寫?

案件資訊:
上訴人/訴訟原告/專利權人:GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (GAT)
被上訴人:WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC.
系爭專利:US7,682,243(IPR2017-01082
判決日:November 19, 2019

本案緣起GAT(專利權人/訴訟原告)向Wargaming提出侵權告訴,而Wargaming提起IPR反制,不過卻面對了是否「及時/立場」的問題,但PTAB判定本案IPR並未因為未時間而不適格,且判斷系爭專利不具非顯而易見性(35 U.S.C. § 103),GAT提起上訴。

[法條
35 U.S.C. § 315(b)]
35 U.S.C. 315 RELATION TO OTHER PROCEEDINGS OR ACTIONS.
...
(b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).

(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
...

系爭專利US7,682,243關於一種線上遊戲,遊戲的方法讓遊戲玩家可以修正其中角色與能力資訊。





Claim 1如下,描述pilot與unit的關聯。
1. An online game providing a method for providing a pilot and a unit associated with the pilot at an online game, the method comprising the steps of:
controlling an online game such that a player can manipulate a pilot and a unit associated with said pilot, said pilot being a game character operated by a player, said pilot representing the player, said unit being a virtual object controlled by the player;
maintaining a unit information database, the unit information database recording unit information on said unit, in which the unit information includes ability of said unit and sync point information;
maintaining a pilot information database, the pilot information database recording pilot information on said pilot, in which the pilot information includes a unit identifier indicating said unit associated with said pilot, ability of said pilot and the ability of said unit associated with said pilot;

receiving a request for update on first pilot ability information of a first pilot;
searching for unit identifier information associated with the first pilot by referring to the pilot information database;
searching for sync point information associated with the searched unit identifier information by referring to the unit information database; and

updating and recording the first pilot ability information and unit ability information associated therewith in accordance with the searched sync point information such that said ability of unit is changed proportionally to changes in ability of the pilot by referring to said sync point,
wherein said sync point information is a ratio of which changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit, and said steps of searching for unit identifier information and of searching for sync point information are performed by a processor.

其實系爭專利說明書也承認在習知技術中遊戲玩家可以控制角色與其元件(unit,如上圖),但是專利權人宣稱習知技術中的角色與其元件為彼此獨立,也就是玩家角色能力與其元件不一定關聯,沒有直接關聯(編按,這個微小的差異大概只有真正的玩家(我不是)可以體會吧!),反之,系爭專利建立了兩者的關聯性。

判決書中列舉一個情境:「同步點(sync point)值為0.8,這個比值表示隨著玩家角色中的「勇氣點數(brave points)增加,其「攻擊力(attack power)也增加。

角色與其元件的定義:
1) Pilot. A pilot used in the present specification is a player character representing a gamer who im-ports his/her feelings in a game to continue the game. The gamer may control motions of a unit through the pilot.

2) Unit. A unit used in the present specification is an object operated by a control of a gamer, and the unit may be an object for continuing a game substantially, for example, a robot character. The unit may be a target for the gamer to import his/her feelings. Also, a concept of item belonging to the gamer may be applied to the unit.

遊戲的專利就用圖來看吧!

以下為原告GAT向地方法院提起Wargaming、Billzard等被告的產品與系爭專利的claim chart,在此列舉為被告暴雪(blizzard)的「魔獸世界(World of Warcraft)」,其中關於每一個專利元件對應的先前技術的圖案(摘錄幾張圖):







除了技術頗為有趣外,主要議題之一是「時間」,以下列舉判決書中指出的重要時間點:

Wargaming提出IPR的時間:March 13, 2017
系爭專利繫屬訴訟的時間為:July 9, 2015
GAT於December 10, 2015英國租用一個「process server」處理"Wargaming.net "的訴訟與來往信息,其中有些文件,但並未被法院認證,GAT的律師也發出副本給Wargaming在Cyprus辦公室。
February 11, 2016,Wargaming律師與GAT律師討論訴訟,Wargaming律師提出拋棄服務的聲明,願意與GAT達成協議,並會等到April 1, 2016回應訴訟。
March 15, 2016,Wargaming律師根據地院規定的時間出席,到了上述協議的April 1, 2016,Wargaming提出撤銷訴訟請願,理由是不當審判地(venue)或是原告不當主張權利。
Wargaming提起IPR異議程序:March 13, 2017



GAT回應此IPR異議提出已經不符合法的期限,當時在英國提起侵權訴訟的時間為:December 14, 2015,也就是開始serve的時間。

PTAB判斷提起IPR時間的標準是,提起IPR的時間是否超出訴訟「提起有效證據」的時間後一年內?

"...record presents competing evidence as to whether Wargaming.net LLP was served more than one year before the filing of the Petition."

PTAB判斷證據發展到可以解決事實議題時,即建立了時間基礎,上述期間建立了可以啟始IPR的條件,應參考上述在英國與賽普魯士的記錄(December 10, 2015),但其中法院並未認證(seal)相關文件,而PTAB是否啟始IPR的判斷都是依據法院的資料,因此在PTAB終判中認為,上述December 10, 2015並未建立「time bar」

"The Board determined that development of the record would be required to resolve the factual issues underlying the time bar, but it instituted the IPR in the interim."

另一議題為「非顯而易見性103」。

先前證據為「Levine and the Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook」(畫面來源是Amazon.com(台灣)):


PTAB意見是,否決GAT宣稱的一些虛擬元件的主張,先前技術都相似地涵蓋了系爭專利中的虛擬元件與特性,如pilot ability、unit ability、sync point等,也都揭露了線上遊戲、資料庫等"具體"特徵,而判斷相關領域一般技術人員可以有足夠的動機結合上述兩個handbook而使得系爭專利因此為顯而易見的技術

案件上訴CAFC

法官認為,雖然35 U.S.C. § 315(b)並未明確地界定出期限是源自相關文件已經提出(served),但是認為PTAB適當地判斷time bar的啟始時間的分析(邏輯),法院的決定是,雖不見得同意,甚至認為GAT一些主張也對(因此接受上訴理由),但是還是認同PTAB的判斷是沒有錯的!



兩照律師討論時,雖有協議,但是法院認為還是沒有建立time bar,...在此忽略一些細節討論,還有非顯而易見性參考文獻使用已經影響新穎性的文件的不當問題,有興趣者可參看原判決文。

結論:IPR異議提出時間符合time bar條件,系爭專利不具非顯而易見性。

my two cents:
程序議題是第一要解決的問題。

有關「time bar」讓我想到「on-sale bar」,專利這塊,時間真的很重要,一個差池就差了十萬八千里!

有次參加訴訟會議,當場的律師們在還未進入「技術主題」前,花很多時間討論「訴之聲明」,顯然...法律與技術的層面不同,考慮的議題也不同!
遊戲專利不好寫,更不好准!
判決文:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1171.Opinion.11-19-2019.pdf(備份:https://app.box.com/s/mt630ub57s0trg5frf5xh9n988k1dcbr

資料參考:
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/11/25/cafc-upholds-ptab-decision-time-bar-obviousness-gaming-patent-claims/id=116421/



日子如何,力量也如何!

Ron

沒有留言: