enpan's Patent & Linux practice: 關於棄權與沒收 - In re Google Technology Holdings LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

2021年3月9日星期二

關於棄權與沒收 - In re Google Technology Holdings LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

在本篇討論案例In re Google Technology Holdings LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)中，法官對棄權（Waiver）與沒收（Forfeiture）有不錯的見解，也是幫大家上了一課。

案件資訊：

上訴人/專利申請人：IN RE: GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC

系爭申請案：US15/179,765

判決日：November 13, 2020

本篇緣起系爭申請案'765從專利審查階段到訴願（PTAB），訴願決定系爭申請案不符103規定，Google提起上訴。

系爭申請案'765關於隨選視訊系統的散布快取（distributed caching），其中系統提供的隨選視訊包括三種等級：(1)一個完整內容的檔案儲存在遠端伺服器；(2)幾個小檔案除存在多個本地端伺服器中；(3)檔案在個別使用者端的機上盒中。當隨選視訊要載至機上盒時，可從不同的位置（包括單一遠端伺服器）取得不同的內容後載至機上盒。

'765的Claim 1如下：

1. A method comprising:

receiving, by a processing apparatus at a first con-tent source, a request for content;

in response to receiving the request, determining that the content is not available from the first con-tent source;

in response to determining that the content is not available from the first content source, determining that a second content source cost associated with retrieving the content from a second content source is less than a third content source cost associated with retrieving the content from a third content source, wherein the second content source cost is determined based on a network impact to fetch the content from the second content source to the first content source, . . .

Claim 2如下：

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

determining that there is not sufficient memory to cache the content at the first content source; and

selecting one or more items to evict from a cache at the first content source to make available sufficient memory for the content, wherein the selection of the items to evict minimizes a network penalty associated with the eviction of the items, wherein the net-work penalty is based on sizes of the content and the items, and numbers of requests expected to be received for the content and the items.

在專利審查階段，審查委員核駁'765案，審查委員判定基於先前技術的組合（Costa, Scholl, Allegrezza, Ryu），'765不具非顯而易見性（103）。Google提起訴願，在訴願理由中，Google提出答辯，說明先前技術僅揭露了"隨機散布（randomly distributing）"幾組影片內容與並未教示系爭申請案專利範圍的理由，然而，在最廣而合理的解釋（broadest reasonable interpretation）原則下，PTAB同意USPTO審查意見，認為先前技術中基於幾個條件（redundancy, distance, or congestion、proximity, time and/or number of nodes）的內容傳輸方法已經教示系爭申請案請求項中的"cost"或是"network impact"，可參考以上Claim中的標示。

進一步地，PTAB審視Google在審查過程中的答辯理由，Google僅討論到先前技術"個別的缺點"，但並未反駁先前技術整體上的教示與建議，因此同意審查委員判定先前技術的"組合"可以教示系爭申請案發明的結論。

"The Board concluded that Google failed to rebut the collective teachings and suggestions of the applied references."

也就是說，Google在答辯中僅強調與先前技術個別的差異，並未論證其組合形成的教示與建議，使得判定答辯無效。

關於此點，Google上訴CAFC。

棄權（waiver）與沒收（forfeiture）：

根據前例，如Compare In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004)、In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)等，法院判決認為，申請人在答辯中沒有爭辯（或未及時主張）的部份就是視為棄權（waived），或是被沒收（forfeited）。

（重要）法官教學，說明"waiver"與"forfeiture"不同，也會有不同的結果，其中"forfeiture"指沒有及時主張權利，就"沒收"了權利；"waiver"指刻意放棄已知權利，也就是棄權。（"“Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’”"）

因此，就本案而言，需要好好釐清一下！