2023年3月8日 星期三

專利範圍不僅只有非功能性特徵的專利適格性討論 - C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Components, Inc. (CAFC 2023)

案件資訊:
原告/上訴人/專利權人:C.R. BARD, INC., BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.
被告/交叉上訴人:MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
系爭專利:US7,785,302、7,947,022、7,959,615 (C.R. Bard, Inc.) US8,021,324 (Medical Components)
判決日:Feb. 17, 2023

這件訴訟雖有原告與被告,但應該是有互告的情況,本案原告C.R.Bard等針對地方法院在簡易判決(summary judgment)中判決三件系爭專利不具專利適格性(35 U.S.C. § 101)的意見提起上訴,而被告Medical也同樣針對地方法院對自己的專利也做出不具專利適格性(35 U.S.C. § 101的結果提出交叉上訴

系爭專利關於不透射線標記(radiopaque  markings)靜脈注射位置的裝置,如'302技術標記出皮下靜脈注射口(venous  access  port),並以「字母(alphanumeric  message)」標註,使得以X光可以看到位置。'615則是界定出凹槽的結構特徵。

302'的claim 5界定一個靜脈注入口的套件,用於植入人體,結構如上,由出口、針刺隔膜與外殼形成,可以輻射光線檢查皮下組織...。

claim 5: A venous access port assembly for implantation into a patient, comprising:
a housing having an outlet, and a needle-penetrable septum, the needle penetrable septum
and the housing together defining a reservoir, 
wherein: 
the assembly includes a radiopaque alphanumeric message observable through interaction
with X-rays subsequent to subcutaneous implantation of the assembly, and the alphanumeric message indicating that the assembly is power injectable.

'615的claim 8:
claim 8: An access port for providing subcutaneous access to a patient, comprising: 
a body defining a cavity accessible by inserting a needle through a septum, the body including a plurality of side surfaces and a bottom surface bounded by a bottom perimeter, the bottom surface on a side of the port opposite the septum, the bottom perimeter including a concave portion, the side surfaces including a first side surface through which an outlet stem extends; and 
at least one structural feature of the access port identifying the access port as being power injectable subsequent to subcutaneous implantation, the at least one structural feature comprising at least one concave side surface in a second side surface different from the first side surface, the concave side surface extending to the bottom perimeter concave portion.

被告Medical Components也有專利,US8,021,324也是用來在靜脈注射位置進行不透射線標記的技術,如以下claim 1內容。


claim 1: An implantable venous access port assembly, comprising: 
a needle-penetrable septum; and 
a housing securing the needle-penetrable septum, the housing comprising a housing base having a bottom wall and X-ray discernable indicia embedded in the bottom wall, the X-ray discernable indicia comprising one or more characters that visually indicate, under X-ray examination, a pressure property of the port assembly.

很特別的是,地方法院作出了訴訟雙方都無法接受的判決。

其中,地方法院在簡易判決中認為,C.R. Bard的三件專利(關於在靜脈注射口的「不透射線標記」)僅是涉及非功能性"印刷品(printed matter)",其中以識別記號作為溝通的資訊(提供自動注射器位置資訊),沒有進步概念(inventive concept),屬於抽象概念(abstract idea)。

地方法院在簡易判決中,也對Medical Components公司的專利'324以相同理由判決發明屬於抽象概念

(關於101議題的內容可參考:https://enpan.blogspot.com/search/label/101

CAFC階段:

案件進入CAFC,議題為35 U.S.C. § 101

CAFC引用2020年C.R. Bard的先前判決 - C R  Bard  Inc.  v.  AngioDynamics,  Inc. (Fed.  Cir.  2020) (判決:https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1756.opinion.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf),認為情況與本案一致。先前案例AngioDynamics主張的專利同樣涉及不透射線標記」的技術,當時議題同樣是發明為非功能性的印刷資訊(non-functional printed matter)是否具有專利適格性?

當時CAFC判決,雖然發明包括了非功能性印刷資訊,但發明並不僅於此,還包括這個資訊如何表示的手段,因此當時CAFC判決C.R. Bard的專利具有適格性

"... they  were  nonetheless  eligible  under § 101 because the claims were not solely directed to non-functional printed matter—they were also directed to “the means by which that information is conveyed."

如此,依據前例,因為爭議實質相同,CAFC認為應該要有相同的結論,受到前例約束,因此判決C.R. Bard系爭專利應具備專利適格性;因為地院用相同理由駁回Medical Components專利,也發回重審。

my two cents:
本案因為CAFC受到前例約束判決系爭專利不僅包括非功能性特徵,還包括有其他技術手段,應具備專利適格性。

經查,前例中,C.R. Bard提出的專利不同於本次,但都是圍繞在相同技術領域上,也就是在皮膚上印上一般光線無法看到的標記,提示注射器注射位置。

當時CAFC判定:"雖然專利包括有非功能的印刷資訊,但整體來說並非僅於此,仍具備專利適格性"。

如此可知,如果發明涉及非功能性的結果,專利範圍應具備其他功能性特徵,如本案即具備結構特徵,或是方法流程、電腦功能與特定裝置等。"整體來看,as a whole"是解釋專利範圍的基本原則。







Ron

沒有留言: