法院解釋"claimed invention"與"invention"並沒有什麼不同－關於"on-sale bar"（Celanese Intl. Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n, 22-01827 (Fed. Cir. 2024)）

本篇是我有點興趣的，因為知道"invention"是"發明"，"claimed invention"是要"取得專利的發明"，但這樣翻譯不好讀，也好奇法條中的"invention"與"claimed invention"到底有何不同？結果本篇法院自己來解釋~~~原來 沒有什麼不同 @#@$!%!

Celanese Intl. Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n,  22-01827 (Fed. Cir. 2024) 為ITC（美國國際貿易委員會，International Trade Commission）案，一般情況是專利權人（本案是上訴人）主張某進口商的進口商品侵權，ITC受理後將進行調查，並做出決定，最後需要總統裁決。

本案資訊：

上訴人：CELANESE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, CELANESE (MALTA) COMPANY 2 LIMITED, CELANESE SALES U.S. LTD.

被上訴人：INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

參加人：ANHUI JINHE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., JINHE USA LLC

系爭專利：US10,023,546 (claims 11, 27)、US10,208,004 (claims 7, 28, 33)、US10,590,095 (claims 1, 19, 34)

判決日：August 12, 2024

ITC階段：

本案緣起專利權人Celanese向ITC提起請願（petition），主張本案參加人Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co. (Jinhe)與相關人進口商品Ace-K（人工甜味劑）的生產流程侵害了犯Celanese專利（系爭專利），違反19 U.S.C. § 1337 。（編按，判決文寫的是＂19 U.S.C. § 337＂，但似乎是＂19 U.S.C. § 1337＂）

19 U.S. Code § 1337 - Unfair practices in import trade（進口貿易不公平業務）

...

(B)The importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that— 

(i)infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent or a valid and enforceable United States copyright registered under title 17; or 

(ii)are made, produced, processed, or mined under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable United States patent.

...

經調查，專利權人Celanese在其專利關鍵日（critical date，September 21, 2015，在此指的是系爭專利優先權日之前一年的日期，也就是新穎性優惠期限第一天）之前已經在歐洲秘密使用；並且Celanese也已經在critical date之前在美國販售以專利流程生產的Ace-K。如此就觸及post-AIA美國專利法所保障的新穎性規定 - 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)。

以系爭專利'546為例，優先權溯及provisional application申請日Sep. 21, 2016，即可推算critical date - Sep. 21, 2015，即相同申請人/發明人公開或實施專利的新穎性優惠期起始日。

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.

• (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
  • (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
  • (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
• (b) EXCEPTIONS.—
  • (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
    • (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or（發明人或直接間接自發明人獲得專利的人的揭露）
    • (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.（發明人或直接間接自發明獲得專利的人的公開揭露的專利標的）
  • (2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
    • (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
    • (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
    • (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

如此，Jinhe根據以上揭露時間的爭議提起簡易判決請求，主張自己並未違反19 U.S.C. § 337，因為系爭專利權人在critical date之前已經有實施並販售的行為，觸及on-sale bar（35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)）。

特別地，針對post-AIA的on-sale bar，雙方都沒有意見，但是Celanese主張AIA改變了pre-AIA的法律，但其在critical date之前的行為是在2015年的祕密程序，主張沒有觸發on-sale bar。

ITC的ALJ（Administrative Law Judge）否決Celanese主張，判定Celanese在critical date之前的販售行為已經觸發on-sale bar，且AIA事實上並沒有推翻AIA前的先例，如美國最高法院在Helsinn案：

－先前販售合約形成「on-sale bar」- Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharma USA (Supreme Court 2019)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/on-sale-bar-helsinn-healthcare-v-teva.html）。

Celanese反駁的理由主要是，根據現行35USC102法條，其中以"claimed invention"取代pre-AIA的"invention"，這是有意義的，認為系爭專利涉及生產流程（claimed process），僅在申請人販售方法本身才會觸發on-sale bar，而不及於專利方法所生產的產品，但ALJ仍判定法條中加入"claimed"並未推翻過去適用的on-sale bar，因此根據前例由專利方法生產的產品足以觸發on-sale bar。

也就是，ITC階段，ALJ認為post-AIA的on-sale bar與pre-AIA的on-sale bar沒有甚麼不同。

Celanese上訴CAFC。

CAFC階段：

上訴CAFC議題就是，是否秘密地以專利方法生產的產品仍會觸發on-sale bar而使之後方法專利申請案無效？

"The question before this court is whether the AIA changed Section 102’s on-sale bar such that Celanese’ pre-2015 sales of Ace-K made using a secret process would not invalidate its later-sought claims on that process."

"on-sale bar"討論可參考：https://enpan.blogspot.com/2023/07/on-sale-bar.html：滿足on-sale bar的條件：(1)商品有商業販售要約；以及(2)發明預備取得專利。

法院在pre-AIA的解釋：所謂"on sale"條款指的是在關鍵日（critical date/effective filing date前一年）之前販售以秘密流程（secret process）生產的產品將阻礙所述流程的專利性。（法院："We explained that the intent behind the on sale bar is to preclude an inventor’s attempt to profit from commercial exploitation of his invention for more than one year before seeking a patent."）

（重要）法院表示，當下on-sale bar的解釋甚至可以溯及1836年實施的專利法，甚至與1829年的判決一致。"on-sale bar"條款目的是維護公眾利益，防止專利權人以商業取得的利益擴及法定期限以外的時間，也就是說，當發明人在申請專利之前已經通過商業販售得利，表示發明人"自願地"拋棄取得專利的權利，只是法律仍保護發明人的權益而提供"有限度的優惠期"，這點從古至今並沒有改變。特別地，法院判決書還重新從歷史、Helsinn案解釋on-sale bar，甚至沒有公開發明細節的行為（商業販售或合約）都可觸發on-sale bar。

回到Celanese主張，根據post-AIA的35USC102的用語"claimed invention"，主張要使用專利流程生產的產品，若沒有公開此流程，並不會觸發on-sale bar。

但法院不同意Celanese主張，認為法條中加入"claimed"並沒有基本上的改變，不論是"invention"或是"claimed invention"，都是發明人想要取得專利的"invention"，沒有什麼不一樣。

當然這樣解釋是基於眾多前例的理解，國會修法將"invention"改成"claimed invention"僅是法條中對文字上的精進。（編按，這樣精進會引起訴訟．．．應該是始料未及。）

CAFC判決：post-AIA並沒有改變pre-AIA的on-sale bar適用。 

如此，長久以來規定販售以秘密流程生產的產品仍會觸發on-sale bar，使得後續要申請專利的流程不具專利性。因此Celanese在申請前（關鍵日之前）販售的Ace-K已經觸發on-sale bar，同意ITC判決，系爭專利範圍中涉及相關流程的專利無效。

CAFC判決：https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1827.OPINION.8-12-2024_2365402.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/o5422l5sha9jcnuho7v5a8msk8xs2uit）

資訊參考：https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/08/coating-process-product.html

Ron