PTAB應對所有IPR被挑戰請求項啟始審查

本篇的相關資訊：
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-969_f2qg.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/6i17tbld8ehgbfgsw3ri7j5674dkkxw0）

- 最高法院表示IPR不違憲 - Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC / SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (Supreme Court 2018)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/04/ipr-oil-states-energy-services-llc-v.html）
- PTAB應對所有提起IPR的請求項作出最終決定 - SAS Institute v. Lee (Supreme Court 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/04/ptabipr-sas-institute-v-lee-supreme.html）

根據美國最高法院在SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu案中的決定，PTAB在IPR程序中應對所有被挑戰的請求項（至少有一項被啟始審查時）作出最終決定。

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-27/pdf/2020-10131.pdf?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email

美國May 27, 2020聯邦記事（Federal Register）摘錄內容：

最高法院判決啟始IPR不能啟始少於全部被IPR挑戰的請求項。

"The U.S. Supreme Court held in SAS that a decision to institute an IPR under 35 U.S.C. 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in a petition."

鑒於SAS案，USPTO提出對應審查方針，如果PTAB啟始審理，就要對IPR, PGR, CBM所有請求項與所有異議理由啟始審理。

"In light of SAS, the Office provided guidance that, if the Board institutes a trial under 35 U.S.C. 314 or 324, the Board will institute on all claims and all grounds included in a petition of an IPR, PGR, or CBM."

"In light of SAS, the guidance states that, if the Board institutes a trial under 35 U.S.C. 314 or 324, the Board will institute on all claims and all grounds included in a petition of an IPR, PGR, or CBM."

PTAB要不然就要審理所有被挑戰請求項，要不然就拒絕啟始案件。

"Under the amended rule, in all pending IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings before the Office, the Board would either institute review on all of the challenged claims and grounds of unpatentability presented in the petition or deny the petition."

USPTO修改規則，當要決定是否啟始案件，要消除對異議人有利的推定，而考量由專利權人初步回應所提出的證據所建立的事實。

"the Office proposes to amend the rules to eliminate the presumption in favor of the petitioner for a genuine issue of material fact created by testimonial evidence submitted with a patent owner’s preliminary response when deciding whether to institute an IPR, PGR, or CBM review."

除非主管判斷異議理由呈現的資訊與回應表示有"成功異議至少一項請求項"的合理可能性，要不然可以啟始IPR。

"Section 314(a) of 35 U.S.C. provides that ‘‘[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.’’"

其他參考：

USPTO Rule Making: Codify SAS, Eliminate Presumption in Favor of Petitioner（https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/05/eliminate-presumption-petitioner.html）

Ron