PUMA v. NIKE (IPR2019-01042)案件資訊：
專利權人：NIKE, INC.
IPR異議人：PUMANORTH AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利：US9,314,065 (IPR2019-01042)
本案緣起PUMA對Nike的'065專利提起IPR異議，異議理由如下：
Anderton: U.S. Patent No. 5,461,801
Auger: U.S. Patent No. 8,056,267
'065專利關於鞋底的釘狀結構，結果用發明專利來寫，還有點複雜！
1. An article of footwear comprising:
a base plate including a forefoot region, a heel region, a midfoot portion disposed between the forefoot region and the heel region, a longitudinal axis extending through the forefoot region and heel region, a forward edge, a rearward edge, a medial edge, and a lateral edge;
a structure disposed on the base plate, the structure including a medial forefoot pad disposed on the forefoot region proximate the midfoot portion and the medial edge, a lateral forefoot pad disposed on the forefoot region proximate the midfoot portion and the lateral edge, a medial heel pad disposed on the heel region proximate the medial edge, a first lateral heel pad disposed on the heel region proximate the lateral edge, a first diagonal rib extending from the medial forefoot pad to the first lateral heel pad, a second diagonal rib extending from the lateral forefoot pad to the medial heel pad, a medial midfoot bar substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and disposed proximate the medial edge, and a lateral midfoot bar substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and disposed proximate the lateral edge;
a medial forefoot stud disposed on the medial forefoot pad;
a medial heel stud disposed on the medial heel pad;
a first lateral forefoot stud disposed on the lateral forefoot pad; and
a first lateral heel stud disposed on the first lateral heel pad;
the first diagonal rib having a first lateral edge intersecting with the first lateral heel pad;
the second diagonal rib having a second lateral edge intersecting with the first lateral forefoot pad;
the lateral midfoot bar having a third lateral edge;
wherein the medial midfoot bar extends from a first point on the first diagonal rib to a second point on the second diagonal rib; and
wherein the third lateral edge of the lateral midfoot bar intersects with, and terminates at, a third point on the second diagonal rib at a forward end of the lateral midfoot bar;
wherein the third lateral edge of the lateral midfoot bar intersects with, and terminates at, a fourth point on the first diagonal rib at a rearward end of the lateral midfoot bar;
wherein the third point is spaced from the lateral forefoot pad; and
wherein the fourth point is spaced from the first lateral heel pad.
用文字界定出鞋底結構還真的有些複雜，連命名都是：
first medial heel stud 132
second medial forefoot stud 134
first lateral forefoot stud 136
second lateral forefoot stud 138
third lateral forefoot stud 140
first center stud 142
second center stud 144
...
解釋專利範圍：
此案異議審理時，PTAB審查官提出解釋專利範圍的圓則是，應與此案在之前民事（侵權訴訟）案中的解釋標準一致，並採用Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)案所帶出的解釋原則。
判斷系爭專利是否具備非顯而易知性（35 U.S.C. 103），引用案例KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)、Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)，原則上就是分析出系爭案專利範圍與先前技術的差異後，判斷兩者差異是否具備非顯而易知性的客觀證據，也就是由相關領域一般技術人員判斷發明當時是否已經是顯而易見了，以及是否先前技術的組合已經產生可預期如系爭案發明的結果。
摘錄這裡採用「Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art」的定義（異議人主張，大家都無異議）：相關領域實際工作2~4年的經驗者，還有學歷要求。
"a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in consumer or industrial product design, engineering, or a related field, or at least around 2–4 years of practical work experience in the design and development of athletic footwear.”"
35 U.S.C. § 325(d)議題：
解釋專利範圍的預備工作後，議題轉向：35 U.S.C. § 325(d)，由於主管機關（PTAB）認為相同或實質相同的先前技術與論述都已經在之前審查過程中提出，因此否決啟始本案。
與前篇討論一樣，採用「Becton Dickinson factors」，參考過去報導：AIA審判實務指南(TPG)筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/08/aia-trial-practice-guide-tpg.html）
Becton Dickinson factors
(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination;
(b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination;
(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection;
(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art;
(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and
(f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
Becton Dickinson factors (a): 大家都同意本次提出引證案與過去審理過的前案一樣，都是Anderton and Auger。
Becton Dickinson factors (b): 因為(a)的結論，不用檢查(b)了。
Becton Dickinson factors (c): 大家都同意本次提出異議理由與過去103議題審委採用的理由一樣。
Becton Dickinson factors (d): 經查本次異議理由與過去的審查意見（查的很詳細）論點，重疊性很高。
Becton Dickinson factors (e): 異議人並未成功地證明過去審查意見有錯（這部分等於異議人要重複提出103相關技術討論，如果與過去一致，也就沒有證明之前有錯！）。
Becton Dickinson factors (f): 此要件是要考量異議理由中是否有額外證據，以及提出的證據是否足夠推翻過去結論，結果PTAB認為異議人提出專家證詞並不足以證明與過去不同而能反駁過去審理意見。
最終，PTAB拒絕啟始本案，理由是異議人的主張已經在過去程序中提過，並且也未能證明審查意見有錯。
本篇IPR決定主要篇幅即圍繞在這六個要件上，可以成為日後採用"Becton Dickinson factors"而拒絕啟始與審理案件的參考。
PTAB決定：
PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2019-01042 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2019)（備份：https://app.box.com/s/5yvyiakmo1ktf6tufbucpc5z03b5q49c）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言