2024年11月19日 星期二

刪除請求項中商標名稱意外產生是否有禁反言的相關議題 - Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

本篇案例分享主要是基於以下MPEP段落,事實上本部落格過去已有報導,但主要是針對其中侵權與均等論的議題-修正但表示沒有放棄等效範圍讓均等論適用的案例 - Eli Lilly and Co v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)https://enpan.blogspot.com/2020/12/eli-lilly-and-co-v-apotex-inc-fed-cir.html)。

而本次討論是「申請專利範圍中使用商標名稱產生不明確」的議題。並且很神奇的是,在專利範圍中寫入商標名稱被駁回,意外產生是否有禁反言問題的議題。

案件資訊:
原告/被上訴人/專利權人:ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 
被告/上訴人:APOTEX, INC 
系爭專利:US7,772,209 
判決文:December 21, 2020

'209在其審查過程中修正專利範圍,已經將具有商標名稱「ALIMTA」的請求項刪除,但回溯其申請時的Claims,如下截圖中的claim 9,其中有商標名稱"ALIMTA"。相同的專利範圍也出現在'209的優先權母案之一 - 10/297,821的申請時申請專利範圍中,2004年9月審查意見即對此提出核駁意見,如下,後來在回覆審查意見時刪除了具有商標名稱的專利範圍。



以上涉及專利範圍中使用商標名稱的規定在MPEP § 2173.05(u),如下,規定中指出,如果專利範圍中商標名稱是用來辨識或是描述特定材料或物品而不是「物品本身」,該項專利範圍就不明確

2173.05(u) Trademarks or Trade Names in a Claim 

The presence of a trademark or trade name in a claim is not, per se, improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, but the claim should be carefully analyzed to determine how the mark or name is used in the claim. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v).

If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parteSimpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Following Patent Office procedure, the Examiner in this case rejected the claims of the '821 application as indefinite because they improperly used the trade name 'ALIMTA.' In response to the rejection, Lilly canceled its claims reciting the trade name and pursued claims using the generic name for the same substance, which mooted the rejection. Additionally, as the district court observed, the Examiner 'explicitly noted that pemetrexed disodium was 'also known by the trade name ALIMTA' ' in the contemporaneous obviousness rejection."). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name. If the applicant responds to such a rejection by replacing the trademark or trade name with a generic term, the examiner should determine whether there is sufficient support in the application for use of a generic term. See MPEP § 2163, subsection II.A.3(b).

If a trademark or trade name appears in a claim and is not intended as a limitation in the claim, the question of why it is in the claim should be addressed. If its presence in the claim causes confusion as to the scope of the claim, then the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.


既然系爭專利具有商品名稱「ALIMTA」在專利審查就被駁回與刪除,在此訴訟中探討的是專利權人Eli Lilly是否將其商標"ALIMTA"等同「pemetrexed disodium/培美曲塞二鈉」?以至於在地方法院解釋專利範圍時,就將兩者當作同義詞,這也影響了侵權主張的範圍。



禁反言v.均等論:專利權人刪除專利範圍是因為專利範圍寫入商標名稱的不明確問題,而沒有建立禁反言。

在法院的判決中,從審查歷史確認當時使用"ALIMTA"是被駁回,其中的理由就是在專利範圍中使用商標名稱識別特定材料或物品,該項範圍不明確,就不符合112(b)規定。如此,依照MPEP,指導審查委員,當在專利範圍中使用商標名稱去識別或描述材料或物品並不僅是讓專利範圍不明確,更不適合寫在專利範圍中。

這個解釋專利範圍的爭議帶到侵權訴訟中,侵權被告Apotex主張,審查委員的結論是"ALIMTA"並不明確,理由是這個用語至少涵蓋兩個意思:“pemetrexed” and “pemetrexed disodium,但專利權人在答辯修正中已經限縮其解釋為“pemetrexed disodium

但法院否決Apotex主張,因為專利範圍在修正時,並非因為"ALIMTA"涵蓋兩種以上的解釋產生不明確問題才駁回該項範圍,而是因為商標名稱寫在claim中產生不明確的問題。

因此,CAFC判決,系爭專利權人Lilly在審查程序中的修正並未產生禁反言,也就是沒有失去其均等論的解釋空間,讓CAFC同意地院判決侵權成立的決定。

編按,本篇僅帶到部分重點,內容可以參考過去報導,或是判決原文


Ron

沒有留言: