enpan's Patent & Linux practice: PTAB有權拒絕相同理由的異議案 - Advanced Bionics v. Med-El elektromedizinische (PTAB)

2020年3月25日星期三

PTAB有權拒絕相同理由的異議案 - Advanced Bionics v. Med-El elektromedizinische (PTAB)

以下幾件案例為USPTO/PTAB指定為先例（precedential）或有資訊價值的案件：

- Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Paper 6) (precedential)
- PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2019-01042 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2019) (Paper 10) (informative)
- Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited, IPR2019-00975 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) (Paper 15) (precedential as to sections II.B and II.C)

USPTO資訊：PTAB designates two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative

--------------------------

本篇討論案例為「Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Paper 6) (precedential)」

此為PTAB拒絕啟始（institution）的案例，涉及35 U.S.C. § 325(d)規定：若提出異議程序的之前已經有另一審理案件（針對相同專利），且已經作出決定或是在審理中，USPTO主管可以決定如何續行：擱置、轉手、合併或終止。特別指相同系爭專利在另一程序中也遇到相同或實質相同的先前技術而言。

35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
35 U.S.C. 325 RELATION TO OTHER PROCEEDINGS OR ACTIONS

...
(d) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.—Notwithstanding sections 135(a), 251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of any post- grant review under this chapter, if another proceeding or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the post-grant review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding. In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.

本文標題是「PTAB有權拒絕相同理由的異議案 - Advanced Bionics v. Med-El elektromedizinische (PTAB)」，主要討論是何謂「相同理由（證據、論點）」？

案件資訊：
IPR異議人：ADVANCED BIONICS, LLC
專利權人：MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GMBH
系爭專利：US8,634,909 (claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20，IPR2019-01469)

US8,634,909關於一種可植入病患體內的磁性裝置，指的是電子耳。
一般電子耳中有磁鐵，當病患接受磁振造影檢查時，此電子耳會被影響，使得其中磁鐵位移，甚至造成耳內組織損害，但系爭專利提出的裝置內有可旋轉磁鐵，磁極平行其中線圈平面殼體，其磁化方向平行人體皮膚，可避免被磁化（進入MRI）時形成轉矩，也就不會產生位移。

Claim 1：
1. An implantable system for a recipient patient, the implantable system comprising:

a coil housing configured to be implanted under the patient's skin, the coil housing having a planar outer surface configured to lie parallel to the patient's skin and containing a signal coil for transcutaneous communication of an implant communication signal; and

a planar disc shaped first attachment magnet within the coil housing, the first attachment magnet adapted to be rotatable therein, having a magnetic dipole moment oriented across a diameter of the first attachment magnet, and configured within the coil housing such that the magnetic dipole moment remains substantially parallel to the planar outer surface of the coil housing when the first attachment magnet rotates for transcutaneous magnetic interaction with a corresponding second attachment magnet.

IPR的103異議理由：

U.S. Pat. No. 6,838,963 B2, issued Jan. 4, 2005 (“Zimmerling”)
U.S. Pat. No. 7,266,208 B2, issued Sept. 4, 2007 (“Charvin”)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2009/0005836, published Jan. 1, 2009 (“Chang”)
U.S. Pat. No. 6,761,681 B2, issued July 13, 2004 (“Schmid”)

這時，根據專利權人意見，議題轉向35 U.S.C. § 325(d)，是否在此異議案之前已經提交過（previously presented）相同或實質相同的前案或論點（art or arguments）？

何謂「之前已經提交過的先前技術與論點」？

"Under § 325(d), the art and arguments must have been previously presented to the Office during proceedings pertaining to the challenged patent."

文中表示包括："審查委員記錄中的前案"、"申請人提供給專利局的先前技術（如IDS）"、"系爭專利的審查歷史"。

與提交的先前技術有關的的程序如：專利審查程序、再審程序（reexamination）、再領證程序，以及AIA的異議程序。

如何應用35 U.S.C. § 325(d)，這裡提出two-part framework：

(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.

第一：是否先前已經提交相同或實質相同的先前技術與論點給審理機關（PTAB）？
第二：符合上述條件，是否異議人證明審理機關的審理有誤？

如果符合"第一點"情況，即表示主管機關可以拒絕審理本次異議案，除非，異議人可以證明之前審理評估所述先前技術與論點有錯。若異議人無法證明先前審理有錯，本次審查官可以否決啟始IPR。

其中，「相同」的前案或論點不難判斷，但是，如何判斷「相同或實質相同」的前案或論點？

這裡又引用了「Becton, Dickinson factors」。這個判斷要素提出，所述「先前提交的前案或論點」是要在「此AIA程序前的任何審理期間（during examination）」提出的。如此可知，如果並未被審查委員引用的前案，可能不算是已經提交過的證據（先前技術）。而且，若要證明「之前審查有誤」，要證明先前審查時對先前技術的考慮是錯的，或是甚至沒有正確引用。

關於本案，PTAB審理此議題時，很仔細地查閱過去審理機關的審理與答辯過程。經查，其實本次IPR提出證據與過去審理期間的引用前案"不同"，但是吊詭的是，先前引用前案與本次證據有實質相同的"資訊"，如Charvin與Zimmerling，以下節錄圖示，當然還是要看看其中內容細節，以及核駁引用段落而定（編按，都是有關平面磁性物體、線圈、可旋轉磁鐵等）。

同樣地，對於前案Chang、Schmid與Zimmerling也是類似的判斷。

Charvin