標題「Terminal Disclaimer Practice to Obviate Nonstatutory Double Patenting」很正常，但內文提及的修法方向恐怕是讓TD決定變得有點棘手。
現行TD的規定已經有相當的限制，包括通過TD聯繫在一起的專利不能分別主張專利權，且應在仍由同一申請人擁有的情況下才能行使專利權。
37 CFR § 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
...
(c) A terminal disclaimer, when filed to obviate judicially created double patenting in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding except as provided for in paragraph (d) of this section, must:
(1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section;
(2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and
(3) Include a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the judicially created double patenting.
(d) A terminal disclaimer, when filed in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding to obviate double patenting based upon a patent or application that is not commonly owned but was disqualified as prior art as set forth in either § 1.104(c)(4)(ii) or (c)(5)(ii) as the result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement, must:
(1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section;
(2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or be signed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and
(3) Include a provision waiving the right to separately enforce any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding and the patent or any patent granted on the application which formed the basis for the double patenting, and that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent and the patent, or any patent granted on the application, which formed the basis for the double patenting are not separately enforced.
修法後，簡單的結論是：
1) TD目的是讓同一申請人通過同意放棄多餘的期限讓"相似"（彼此僅有顯而易見的差異/obviously distinct）專利案都可以核准專利。
2) 同一申請人可能濫用多件"相似"專利的權利，被影響的一方（如侵權被告）需要花費極大的成本對抗（如對個別專利提出無效程序）這些權利。
3) 若要避免申請人濫用通過TD取得的多件專利權，根據修法方向，若通過TD而取得的專利其中之一（任一claim）被判無效，其餘專利則無法行使權利。
4) 這樣的話，可能可以節省司法資源，也可以降低TD的使用，更可以減少以TD避免「non-statutory double patenting」而獲准的專利數量。
5) 申請人將避免使用TD，而更著重專利之間的非顯而易見的差異，專利的個別化特徵將更明確。
6) 通過此措施剝奪專利權人的一些權利可能有利於產業發展（這是看是依據誰的角度）。
先定義通過同一TD獲准的兩件以上專利是彼此"tie（聯繫）"在一起。
以後，當要通過terminal disclaimer(TD)排除「non-statutory double patenting」的核駁理由，同時需要簽署一個agreement，同意通過TD獲准的專利＂僅能當專利並未直接或間接聯繫(tie)也從未聯繫於其他通過TD排除非法定重複專利而獲准的專利中有任一專利權項(claim)被最終判定無效時＂才能主張專利權（enforceable）。
不太會翻，但是主要意思是，反過來講，當通過TD獲准的專利中，有任一專利中的任一專利權項被USPTO、法院判定無效，所聯繫的所有專利都無法行使專利權。
看來是有點合理，因為這些專利範圍之間的差異不大，一起無法行使專利權可理解，但是是否所有專利範圍彼此都是"顯而易見"的差異，或是與無效的該項之間僅有顯而易見的差異，顯然多數不是這樣，只是因為TD提供的方便的處理方式。
因此，如果此修法正式實施，申請人應盡量迴避不要使用TD，讓專利之間差異可以更大，使專利之間有"非顯而易見的差異"，要不然這個agreement可能影響將來行使專利的權利。
USPTO預備調整TD後專利權的效力：https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-10166.pdf
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言