enpan's Patent & Linux practice: CIP

顯示具有 CIP 標籤的文章。顯示所有文章

2025年3月6日星期四

是否可以將"他人"的前申請案作為優先全基礎案？(筆記)

一個簡單的問題：一件後申請案（如新申請案、CIP等）是否可以他人申請的前申請案作為優先權基礎案？即便答案應該很清楚，但還是要找到法條支持。

根據巴黎公約Art. 4，在任一巴黎公約簽署國合法提出發明、新型、設計或商標的任何人，或其繼承人，在固定期限內應享有他國申請的優先權。

也就是說其他國家的申請案應是這個人或「繼承人（successor）」，所謂繼承人，對照美國專利法35U.S.C.119，指合法代表人（legal representative）或經受讓（assign）的人，才是有資格取得前申請案（或應為最早申請案）的優先權。

Article 4 A to I.

Patents, Utility Models, Industrial Designs, Marks, Inventors’ Certificates: Right of Priority G. Patents: Division of the Application A. (1) Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed. …

35 U.S.C. 119 Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority.

· (a) An application for patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously regularly filed an application for a patent for the same invention in a foreign country which affords similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States, or in a WTO member country, shall have the same effect as the same application would have if filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country, if the application in this country is filed within 12 months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed. The Director may prescribe regulations, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), pursuant to which the 12-month period set forth in this subsection may be extended by an additional 2 months if the delay in filing the application in this country within the 12-month period was unintentional.

設計案的優先權規定在35 U.S.C. 172，不能主張臨時申請案優先權。

35 U.S.C. 172 Right of priority.

The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not apply to designs.

MPEP 213.02規定主張優先權的資格，所謂申請人、申請人的合法代表人，如相同發明人，或至少一個相同發明人。

MPEP 213.02

II. THE SAME INVENTOR OR AT LEAST ONE COMMON JOINT INVENTOR

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119(a), the foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as the applicant in the United States, or by applicant's legal representatives or assigns. Consistent with longstanding Office policy, this is interpreted to mean that the U.S. and foreign applications must name the same inventor or have at least one joint inventor in common. For example, a right of priority does not exist in the case of an application of sole inventor A in the foreign country and sole inventor B in the United States, even though the two applications may be owned by the same party. The application in the foreign country may have been filed by the assignee, or by the legal representative or agent of the inventor, rather than by the inventor, but in such cases the name of the inventor is usually given in the foreign application on a paper filed therein. Joint inventors A and B in a nonprovisional application filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office may properly claim the benefit of an application filed in a foreign country by A and another application filed in a foreign country by B, i.e., A and B may each claim the benefit of their foreign filed applications. See MPEP § 602.09 for more information about joint inventors. See MPEP §§ 602.01(c) and 1412.04 for correction of inventorship. If upon filing of the U.S. application and the filing of a relied upon prior-filed foreign application there is an overlap in appropriately named inventorship, an application can properly claim right of priority of the prior filed application’s filing date pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119. See 37 CFR 1.45, 1.48 and 1.78.

Ron

2024年12月13日星期五

本篇涉及侵權審查的基本概念以及是否採用他國專利答辯歷史或主張的議題 - Caterpillar Tractor Corp. v. Berco, S.P.A. (Fed. Cir. 1983)

本篇討論多年前的經典案例，感謝同事提供參考資料，Caterpillar Tractor Corp. v. Berco, S.P.A., 714 F.2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1983)，本篇標題就差不多是本案議題宗旨。

案件資訊：

原告/專利權人：Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Caterpillar)

被告：Berco, S.p.A. (Berco)

系爭專利：US3,841,718

案件背景：

Caterpillar對Berco等人提出侵權告訴，系爭專利'718涉及一種增強型密封環。被告承認其產品type 1侵權，但已經提出修改版的type 2，但是地方法院仍判定type 1與type 2都侵權成立，並發出禁制令。被告對type 2侵權成立判決提起上訴。

系爭專利claim 1如下，描述一種密封組件，內容有點複雜，在此不翻譯了。

1. A seal assembly comprising first and second axially spaced members mounted for relative rotation about a common axis, the first member having a counterbore formed in one face, the second member having an end face opposite the counterbore, a seal ring of tough abrasion resistant material having a crescent shape in cross-section disposed in the counterbore with the crescent shaped cross section defining an annular groove facing the sidewall of the counterbore, the seal ring including a driving flange engaged in non-rotative driving contact with the sidewall and an end wall of the counterbore at the juncture of these walls, a sealing flange engaged in annular face sealing rotative contact with the end face of the second member, the driving said sealing flanges being interconnected by a wall section of substantially thinner cross section than that of the flanges, the thin dimension imparting thereto a substantial lateral flexibility while retaining a torsional modulus characteristic of the tough abrasion resistant material, and a load ring of elastomeric material having substantial spring response characteristics, said load ring being disposed within the annular groove of the crescent shaped seal ring and engaging substantially the entire inner wall surface of the sealing flange and being axially compressed between the driving flange and the sealing flange, the interconnecting thin wall section having a resiliency and torsional modulus such that virtually all driving torque is transmitted from said driving flange to said seal flange therethrough, whereas virtually all of the seal flange face load is derived from compression of said load ring.

Claim 10描述一種在圓形空腔內的密封件：

10. A seal assembly in an annular cavity formed by first and second members which are subject to relative rotation, the first member forming the axially facing end wall and a radially facing sidewall of the cavity, the second member having an end face forming another axially facing end wall of the cavity opposite the one axially facing end wall, comprising a seal ring of tough abrasion-resistant material having a crescent shape in cross-section, the seal ring being disposed in the annular cavity with an annular groove of the crescent-shaped seal ring facing the sidewall of the cavity, the seal ring having a driving flange engaged in non-rotative driving contact with the sidewall and the one end wall of the cavity at the junction of these walls and a sealing flange engaged in face sealing rotative contact with the end face of the second member, the seal ring also having a thin-wall section connecting the flanges and providing a flexible hinge therebetween, and a load ring of resilient elastomeric material being disposed adjacent the sidewall of the first member and encompassed by the crescent-shaped cross-section of the seal ring and engaging substantially the entire inner wall surface of the sealing flange whereby the load ring is axially compressed between the driving flange and the sealing flange, axially acting forces for urging the sealing flange against the end wall of the second member and maintaining substantially constant sealing engagement therebetween are provided substantially by compression of the load ring.

在系爭專利專利審查過程中，先在1971年提出最早申請案 - 申請號116,157，審查委員對此申請案發出核駁理由，主要新穎性引證案為US3,390,922（這件後來也轉讓給Caterpillar），審查委員也提出112不明確的核駁意見，認為claim中用語"thin"不明確，因為沒有比較基礎、也沒有定義。

後來Caterpillar在1972年提出CIP申請案（申請號300,817），就補充"thin"的定義，後來1974年核准專利，即本次系爭專利 - US3,841,718。

案件進入CAFC：

經比對系爭專利範圍與被告Berco的產品，爭議在請求項中的幾段話，如claim 1中的「a wall section of substantially thinner cross section than that of the flanges . . . .」、claim 19的「the wall section being of thin cross-section relative to that of the ends. . . . .」，這兩段話是要界定"樞紐壁/hinge wall"有比其兩側凸緣（flange）更薄的截面。

被告侵權產品Berco的type 2產品的密封件的樞紐比密封凸緣（sealing flange）還薄，但是並沒有比驅動凸緣（driving flange）更薄。

因此在文義讀取的判斷上，Berco的type 2產品並沒有侵害系爭專利權（no literal infringement）。

於是原告Caterpillar就主張適用"均等論（doctrine of equivalents）"，主張Berco的type 2產品以實質相同方法執行實際相同的功能以達成相同的結果（"perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result"）。

經法院審理，認為Berco的type 2產品的密封件與系爭專利範圍有實質相同的結構，並以實質相同的方法產生實質相同的結果，因此侵權判定適用均等論。（編按，但是，其中卻沒有任何記錄顯示較薄的驅動凸緣（driving flange）影響產品的運作或是得出的結果，也就是說，文義沒有讀取的特徵並沒有涉及均等論的判斷。）

針對以上均等論適用的決定，被告Berco主張「歷史禁反言/doctrine of file history estoppel」反擊。

針對claims 1, 19：

特別地，經查系爭專利'718中的claims 1, 19中包括了CIP案新增的特徵，法院認為過去的各種答辯歷史並不能全部套用，但明顯地，Caterpillar並沒有定義所述樞紐（hinge）的截面比其凸緣的一個還薄，並且也沒有相關的刪除與修正，也就是說，Caterpillar並沒有通過修正或是答辯影響關於其樞紐截面比所述兩種凸緣更薄的解釋，並沒有對此產生禁反言，因此專利範圍的解釋適用均等論，侵權成立。（法院澄清，針對112的修正並非是為了要區隔先前技術，因此並沒有產生歷史禁反言）

針對claim 10：

系爭專利claim 10中有句話："a thinwall section connecting the flanges and providing a flexible hinge therebetween . . . ."，法院判決claim 10直接讀入Berco的type 2產品，侵權成立。

針對以上claim 10侵權成立的判決，Berco等人主張"thin"沒有更薄的意思，不同於"thinner than the flanges"的解釋，但是法院否決，認為系爭專利'718說明書記載了何謂"thin"，並描述相關實施例，因此法院不覺得"thin"不是沒有意義，因此仍判定侵權成立。

（以上判決與論述都是侵權案例的經典，但仍有以下重點）

【本篇重點】

針對以上"打擊"，敗訴的Berco等人就尋求原告Caterpillar的外國案、外國委任律師等針對其他對應外國專利的意見，如德國、英國，也就是希望利用本系爭專利在他國進行審查答辯時為了要區隔先前技術的主張來影響目前訴訟中的專利範圍解釋，然而，法院並不採用。

其中一段話：

"Though no authority is cited for the proposition that instructions to foreign counsel and a representation to foreign patent offices should be considered, and the varying legal and procedural requirements for obtaining patent protection in foreign countries might render consideration of certain types of representations inappropriate, there is ample such authority in decisions of other courts and when such matters comprise relevant evidence they must be considered."

儘管沒有任何權威指出應考慮給當事人的外國（美國以外）律師或外國專利局的代表的指示（instruction），基於不同法律與程序要求取得的外國專利成為某種形式的考慮基礎並不恰當。不過，法院也沒有全然否決，然而，在其他法院決定的權威下，若證據有相關性，仍應被考慮。（翻譯得不好，請見諒）

本案侵權成立（claims 1, 19均等論適用、claim 10文義侵害成立）。

my two cents:

以上侵權案例經典地涉及審查歷史、文義讀取、均等論，以及禁反言等議題。

本案例算是蠻久以前的案子，但是其中CIP產生的影響卻是頗為深刻，因為系爭專利為CIP案，很多針對其母案的審查歷史或是答辯的主張/限縮都可能不適用後續的CIP案（獨立請求項都有cip新增特徵），這倒是看到了CIP案的好處（雖然後來主流都不建議CIP申請案）。

判決文：https://casetext.com/case/caterpillar-tractor-co-v-berco-spa

資料參考：https://www.twba.org.tw/upload/article/20230103/6cb5bf300bf749b0ab48fd8c13d551e1/6cb5bf300bf749b0ab48fd8c13d551e1.pdf

Ron

2024年9月17日星期二

筆記cross reference的寫法

以下為美國專利US11586181（申請號：US16/698,606）的cross reference（優先權資訊），覺得超複雜，就只是看看，專利權人是＂Strong Force IoT Portfolio＂，名稱看來是NPE。（用顏色勾勒一下關聯性，寫法很分散，有點特殊。）

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims the benefit of, and is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 16/143,286, filed Sep. 26, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH FREQUENCY BAND ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIAGNOSING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 15/973,406, filed May 7, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

U.S. Ser. No. 15/973,406 is a bypass continuation-in-part of International Application Number PCT/US17/31721, filed May 9, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS, published on Nov. 16, 2017, as WO 2017/196821, which claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/333,589, filed May 9, 2016, entitled STRONG FORCE INDUSTRIAL IOT MATRIX; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/350,672, filed Jun. 15, 2016, entitled STRATEGY FOR HIGH SAMPLING RATE DIGITAL RECORDING OF MEASUREMENT WAVEFORM DATA AS PART OF AN AUTOMATED SEQUENTIAL LIST THAT STREAMS LONG-DURATION AND GAP-FREE WAVEFORM DATA TO STORAGE FOR MORE FLEXIBLE POST-PROCESSING; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/412,843, filed Oct. 26, 2016, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/427,141, filed Nov. 28, 2016, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 15/973,406 also claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,557, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SMART HEATING SYSTEMS IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/562,487, filed Sep. 24, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 claims the benefit of, and is a bypass continuation of, International Application Number PCT/US18/45036, filed Aug. 2, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

International Application Number PCT/US18/45036 claims the benefit of, and is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 15/973,406, filed May 7, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DEFECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

International Application Number PCT/US18/45036 claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,557, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SMART HEATING SYSTEMS IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,513, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SMART HEATING SYSTEM THAT PRODUCES AND USES HYDROGEN FUEL; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/562,487, filed Sep. 24, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

All of the foregoing applications are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein in their entirety.

-------------------------------------------

國際優先權主張的法條：35 U.S. Code § 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

美國國內優先權（CA, CIP）主張的法條：35 U.S. Code § 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

美國分割案是基於：35 U.S. Code § 121 - Divisional applications

-------------------------------------------

以下為美國專利US20210315581（申請號：US17/358,276）的cross reference，比以上案例更複雜，此例特別的是有將法條依據補上，更顯得複雜。

The present application is a continuation application claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/209,416, titled METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING, DISPLAY, AND CLOUD ANALYTICS, filed Dec. 4, 2018, now U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206562, which also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,183, titled CONTROL FOR A SURGICAL NETWORK OR SURGICAL NETWORK CONNECTED DEVICE THAT ADJUSTS ITS FUNCTION BASED ON A SENSED SITUATION OR USAGE, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,177, titled AUTOMATED DATA SCALING, ALIGNMENT, AND ORGANIZING BASED ON PREDEFINED PARAMETERS WITHIN A SURGICAL NETWORK BEFORE TRANSMISSION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,176, titled INDIRECT COMMAND AND CONTROL OF A FIRST OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM THROUGH THE USE OF A SECOND OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM WITHIN A STERILE FIELD WHERE THE SECOND OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM HAS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OPERATING MODES, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,185, titled POWERED STAPLING DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING FORCE, ADVANCEMENT SPEED, AND OVERALL STROKE OF CUTTING MEMBER OF THE DEVICE BASED ON SENSED PARAME1ER OF FIRING OR CLAMPING, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,184, tided POWERED SURGICAL TOOL WITH A PREDEFINED ADJUSTABLE CONTROL ALGORITHM FOR CONTROLLING AT LEAST ONE END EFFECTOR PARAMETER AND A MEANS FOR LIMITING THE ADJUSTMENT, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,182, tided SENSING THE PATIENT POSITION AND CONTACT UTILIZING THE MONO-POLAR RETURN PAD ELECTRODE TO PROVIDE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TO THE HUB, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,191, titled SURGICAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REAL TIME ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURE VARIABLES AGAINST A BASELINE HIGHLIGHTING DIFFERENCES FROM THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,195, tided ULTRASONIC ENERGY DEVICE WHICH VARIES PRESSURE APPLIED BY CLAMP ARM TO PROVIDE THRESHOLD CONTROL PRESSURE AT A CUT PROGRESSION LOCATION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,186, tided WIRELESS PAIRING OF A SURGICAL DEVICE WITH ANOTHER DEVICE WITHIN A STERILE SURGICAL FIELD BASED ON THE USAGE AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF DEVICES, filed Sep. 10, 2018, the disclosure of each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

This application is a continuation application claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/209,416, titled METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING, DISPLAY, AND CLOUD ANALYTICS, filed Dec. 4, 2018, now U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206562, which also claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,302, titled INTERACTIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS WITH ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATION CAPABILITIES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,294, titled DATA STRIPPING METHOD TO IN IERROGATE PATIENT RECORDS AND CREATE ANONYMIZED RECORD, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,300, titled SURGICAL HUB SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,309, titled SURGICAL HUB SPATIAL AWARENESS TO DETERMINE DEVICES IN OPERATING THEATER, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,310, titled COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED INTERACTIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,291, titled USE OF LASER LIGHT AND RED-GREEN-BLUE COLORATION TO DETERMINE PROPERTIES OF BACK SCATTERED LIGHT, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,296, titled ADAPTIVE CONTROL PROGRAM UPDATES FOR SURGICAL DEVICES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,333, titled CLOUD-BASED MEDICAL ANALYTICS FOR CUSTOMIZATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO A USER, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,327, titled CLOUD-BASED MEDICAL ANALYTICS FOR SECURITY AND AUTHENTICATION TRENDS AND REACTIVE MEASURES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,315, titled DATA HANDLING AND PRIORITIZATION IN A CLOUD ANALYTICS NETWORK, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,313, titled CLOUD INTERFACE FOR COUPLED SURGICAL DEVICES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,320, titled DRIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,307, titled AUTOMATIC TOOL ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,323, titled SENSING ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, the disclosure of each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

Ron

2023年5月11日星期四

專利申請中新增的特徵產生共同發明人爭議 - Pannu v. Iolab Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1998)

本篇報導是基於前一篇案例（誰是共同發明人的爭議 - HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2023)）討論時提到Pannu factors，就再次找出本案例來看。

本篇名稱「專利申請中新增的特徵產生共同發明人爭議」，主要爭議在「誰是發明人？或是誰可以是共同發明人？」（inventorship），專利是否因此無效跟是否有欺瞞意圖有關係。

過去報導「一件有關發明人不實的案例筆記 - Jaswant S. PANNU v. IOLAB CORPORATION (CAFC 1998)」主要針對「發明人不實」的議題，一般理解是當判定專利發明人不實，將影響專利權的行使，而從Pannu案進一步理解，當訴訟標的的專利權有發明人不實的情況時，除了要求更正外，還可能有專利權無效的問題，亦可能面對"旁系禁反言（collateral estoppel）"（關於訴訟立場、防止審理已經重複的爭點）的阻礙。

一件發明可能僅由一個人的概念開始，開發過程往往會有其他人參與，因此發明人是誰總是與整個研發歷程有關，專利權以申請專利範圍表示，inventorship主要的判斷原則是誰對其中任一權利範圍具有實質貢獻，講完了，還是會有爭議的，爭議由法院處理。

---本案背景---

案件簡史 - Pannu v. Iolab Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1998)

（判決全文：https://casetext.com/case/pannu-v-iolab-corp）

此案例的其中之一議題是系爭專利（Reissue Patent 32,525）的發明人資格（inventorship）。

整個故事從Pannu（應該是位醫生）於1980年4月提出專利申請案開始，專利涉及「改良人工水晶體」的技術。到了同年10月，Pannu遇到Dr. William Link，Link後來成為Heyer-Schulte公司的總裁，是製造人工水晶體的廠商，雙方討論Heyer-Schulte是否有興趣獲得Pannu授權製造相關產品，Link也建議Pannu可以一體成形的方式製作人工水晶體，後來也成功地製造相關產品，更提供Pannu可以植入病患的眼中。

到了1981年5月，Pannu提出部分接續案（CIP，獲准US4,435,855，後來在1987年又再領證為系爭專利RE32,525），其中就加入一體成形製作的鏡片結構，並與其中具有支撐結構整合，這是原來1980年申請案沒有的特徵。參考系爭專利'525的相關圖式如下。

Claim 1：

CIP案獲准又再領證RE32,525，Pannu的律師向Dr. William Link提出授權的提案，結果不講還好，一旦提出授權提案，Link回應其中一體成形的設計是他提出的，還驚訝發明人僅列出Pannu一人，claim 1如上，明白地表示這是「one-piece construction/一體式結構」。

---以上為本案背景---

系爭專利RE32,525

Panu於1993年向Iolab提出侵權告訴，Iolab提出系爭專利無效的主張，理由是系爭專利揭露內容並未滿足可實施性要件，缺乏best mode，以及發明人不實（improper inventorship）。

發明人不實（improper inventorship）議題：

Iolab主張Link並未列於發明人中，甚至認為Link是唯一發明人，主要依據是1980年的非保密信件中揭露Pannu與Link相關合作計畫。

（本案地院對專利權人頗為友善）經過審理，根據法院意見，認為Link並非唯一發明人，但也不能說Pannu在發明人不實上有惡意（bad faith），而發明人是可更正的，也不會造成專利無效。

地方法院與陪審團意見是，系爭專利並未違反可實施性，並基於以上對於inventorship的意見，專利有效，另也做出部分侵權成立以及損害賠償的判決。

Iolab上訴，Pannu對於部分侵權不成立意見交叉上訴。

CAFC階段：

（在此僅討論inventorship）

Iolab繼續提出證據證明發明人不實，並且基於35 U.S.C. § 256規定不能通過更正迴避。

35 U.S. Code § 256 - Correction of named inventor

(a)Correction.—

Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.

(b)Patent Valid if Error Corrected.—

The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.

CAFC法官認為地方法院有錯，錯在並未將inventorship議題讓陪審團審理，並根據「35 U.S. Code § 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses」中規範被告可以主張專利無效的條件，認為Pannu已有欺瞞意圖 - deceptively intended not to disclose that co-inventorship in its application to the Patent Office，根據35U.S.C.102(f)，專利無效。

pre-AIA 35U.S.C. 102(f)：

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — (不予專利理由)

...

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented; or

...

根據過去判例，法院認為若證實未將真正發明人列入，專利無效。

Accordingly, if non-joinder of an actual inventor is proved by clear and convincing evidence, ... a patent is rendered invalid.

文中提出過去許多案例，說明，基於欺瞞意圖，發明人不實將造成專利無效的。只要證明專利可基於256條規定執行更正，專利並不會無效。

如此，CAFC判決地院有錯，因為證據顯示Pannu並非唯一發明人，Link在一體成形的結構上是真正發明人，即便兩人並未真正實體合作，也不是都對所有專利範圍有貢獻。

在此就提出Pannu factors（共同發明人的要件）:

(1) contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention;

(2) made a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention; and

(3) did more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.

相關案例報導：

- 誰是共同發明人的爭議 - HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2023)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2023/05/hip-inc-v-hormel-foods-corp-fed-cir-2023.html）

- 一件有關發明人不實的案例筆記 - Jaswant S. PANNU v. IOLAB CORPORATION (CAFC 1998)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2021/09/blog-post_20.html）

- 發明人不實而不准專利（共同發明人有誰？） - In re VerHoef (Fed. Cir. 2018)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/05/in-re-verhoef-fed-cir-2018.html）

- 發明人更正不會讓專利無效、司法禁反言之適用 - Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2020/10/egenera-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-fed-cir.html）

Ron

2023年4月25日星期二

CA or DIV - 筆記

筆記（本篇僅適用美國）

問題：USPTO針對某專利申請案發出限制選擇要求（restriction/election requirement），其中將申請專利範圍（基於說明書實施例）根據不同分類區分為多組發明（如發明一、發明二、發明三），要求限制選擇，經申請人選擇其中之一「發明一」繼續審查，發明一經審查獲准，在領證公告之前（before issuance），針對「發明二」提出分割申請案（divisional application），不久「發明一」即領證公告。

這時USPTO接續審查「發明二」，如果此時申請人想要針對「發明三」提出另一申請案，是提出分割申請案（DIV）？還是接續案（continuation application，CA）？

事實上CA與DIV實質是相似的，只是面對基礎案的狀態而有不同的法律與程序。

簡單的回答是，不論CA或DIV（亦可適用CIP），內容都一樣，程序如何走是根據「基礎案／母案」狀態決定，因此，上述狀態下的延續案，即便是發明三，仍應採用CA（基於仍有pending的申請案），因為其基礎案已經領證公告（程序已終止）。

如果基礎案是一般狀態的申請案，在未公告領證或是拋棄之前，都可出CA/CIP等延續案。如果基礎案是經過限制選擇要求的，在基礎案未公告領證或是拋棄之前，可針對其中未選擇的申請專利範圍提出一或多件DIV，如果並非針對其中未選擇範圍，延續案應為CA。

根據以下列舉法條，35USC121規範分割申請案，就是指根據審查意見提出的限制選擇提出DIV相關規定亦需參考規範延續案35USC120，還提到，在限制選擇要求下在基礎案領證公告前提出DIV，不能拿來對抗DIV或是相關申請案，意思是，DIV應該是要在基礎案領證公告前提出申請。

35 U.S.C. 121 DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS.

If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.

參考：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html

摘錄其中相關內容：

- A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.

- The inventorship in the divisional application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application, and the divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).

- An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a “divisional” of the provisional application.

- A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a).（發明專利申請案的DIV可以是設計案!）

Ron

2019年11月7日星期四

PCT進入美國的BYPASS案筆記 - MPEP 1895

MPEP 1895規範PCT案進入美國階段的特殊申請案（CA、DIV、CIP）的情況，其中涉及幾個法條，在此先註明一下：

35 U.S.C. 111(a)：申請案要件：說明書、圖示、宣誓書（說明書+圖式可取得申請日，但日後還是要補齊文件）。

35 U.S.C. 371(c)：申請案從國際組織進入美國階段時，申請人應提出：費用、國際申請案副本（含修正、檢索報告、初步審查意見）、英文翻譯、修正、宣誓書與附件英文翻譯。

35 U.S.C. 363：PCT申請案指定進入美國的效力。

35 U.S.C. 371(d)：要求進入美國國家階段期限內補齊文件，否則視為拋棄。

35 U.S.C. 365(c)：PCT進入美國的專利申請案享有PCT案申請日（或PCT前第一申請案）申請日的好處。

35 U.S.C. 120：美國申請案享有較早申請案申請日的好處。

根據MPEP 1895規定，從PCT案進入美國階段，即便沒有滿足所有申請案要件，仍可根據35 U.S.C. 363完成指定美國階段的程序，但仍需要補齊文件，符合35 U.S.C. 371(c)（必要文件）規定，若沒有在指定期限內補齊文件，美國申請案視為拋棄。

本章所提由PCT進入美國國家階段所提出的後續案（continuing application：CA、DIV、CIP）稱為「bypass」申請案（可翻為「繞道」申請案）。

如何處理這類「繞道申請案」？可參照MPEP 1895.01。

PCT案進入美國階段的「一般申請案」可主張PCT國際申請案申請日的優先權，若此美國階段申請日為CA、DIV或CIP等「繞道申請案」。亦如「一般申請案」，進入美國國家階段申請案應在PCT仍懸宕（pending，除有延遲理由，從最早申請日起不能超出30個月）時提出。

後續案延遲時，還有補救機會，可參閱37 CFR 1.55(c)規定。
---------------------------------------

那麼，為何要用bypass案進入美國？理由應該是，這只是一種選擇，想要用不同的專利範圍進入美國，可能是因為：
(1)單純地這樣決定，沒有特別理由，反正符合規定；
(2)接獲PCT檢索報告或初步審查意見（專利性、單一性有疑慮）而作出的決定，或是
(3)提供PCT初步審查意見的正是USPTO，可以根據審查報告進行佈局，或是
(4)可能在選擇進入美國國家階段前，已經接獲其他國家審查報告，因而作出選擇，如此即"選擇"在進入美國時直接改以CA、DIV、CIP等申請案進入。

---------------------------------------

[法條]
（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1895.html）

MPEP 1895 A Continuation, Divisional, or Continuation- in- Part Application of a PCT Application Designating the United States

It is possible to file a U.S. national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) during the pendency (prior to the abandonment) of an international application which designates the United States without completing the requirements for entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(c). The ability to take such action is based on provisions of the United States patent law. 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that “[a]n international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office....” 35 U.S.C. 371(d) indicates that failure to timely comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c) “shall be regarded as abandonment... by the parties thereof....” It is therefore clear that an international application which designates the United States has the effect of a pending U.S. application from the international application filing date until its abandonment as to the United States. The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that “[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120 of this title,... a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.” The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application. The filing of a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application of a PCT application designating the United States is known as a “bypass” application.

Continuation-in-part applications are generally filed in instances where applicants seek to add matter to the disclosure which is not supported by the disclosure of the international application as originally filed, as new matter may not be added to a U.S. national stage application. See 37 CFR 1.121(f).

MPEP 1895.01 Handling of and Considerations in the Handling of Continuations, Divisions, and Continuations-In-Part of PCT Applications

資料參考：
https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2018/05/:~:targetText=A%20%E2%80%9Cbypass%E2%80%9D%20application%20is%20filed,another%20domestically%20filed%20U.S.%20application.（本篇很豐富，可以讓我們思考bypass）

感謝同事陳小姐分享。

Ron

2019年7月15日星期一

CIP的母案成為先前技術的筆記

CIP的母案成為先前技術的筆記

- 有關102(a)(2)例外條款102(b)(2)的筆記 - MPEP 2154.02（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/102a2102b2-mpep-215402.html）
- 新穎性先前技術的例外 - MPEP 717
（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/07/mpep-717.html）

CIP案（Continuation in Part）是一種可以提供申請人/發明人以新增技術特徵（new matter）的方式提出申請的接續案，一般來說，就是已經提出申請的母案之後，加入新特徵的接續案。常見情境是，母案遭受核駁，又無法答辯（或其他理由）的情況，希望通過新增技術特徵而延續案件的方案。

然而，面對美國專利改革法案（AIA）後，CIP這類案型遭遇到不小的挑戰，因為CIP提出時，母案往往已經公開，而且公開"超過一年"，這樣母案成為「有效的先前技術」。

相關案例討論如：
- CIP母案可能為CIP案先前技術的討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/01/cipcip.html）
- CIP案被自己母案阻礙的案例 - Santarus v. Par Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2012)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/10/cip-santarus-v-par-pharma-fed-cir-2012.html）

如此，對「新增母案未揭露的技術特徵的CIP案的申請專利範圍」而言，CIP的存在意義為何？或是，CIP的申請策略為何？

- 回歸每個申請案都為獨立申請案的樣貌，以及Claim-By-Claim的判斷原則，「新增母案未揭露技術特徵的CIP案的申請專利範圍」的「有效申請日」為CIP案的申請日，無法溯及母案申請日。

- 35 U.S.C. 120規定後申請案如何主張與先前申請案同樣申請日時間的規定。

35 U.S.C. 120 BENEFIT OF EARLIER FILING DATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.

- 若CIP案的申請專利範圍包括母案未揭露的特徵，該項申請專利範圍的有效申請日為CIP案申請日，但同樣地，若前後申請案有箱同的至少一個發明人，後案仍符合不具新穎性排除條款。

- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)規定發明在申請日前已公開，不具新穎性，這是「比公開日」的新穎性條款，其例外條款為102(b)(1)(A)(B)：（法條中的claimed invention即指本篇討論的CIP案具有new matter的專利範圍）

根據102(b)(1)(A)，當先前揭露（母案）是CIP案的「發明人、共同發明人或其他直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人得到」的揭露內容，若其公開於CIP案的有效申請日前"一年內"，CIP的母案並不視為先前技術。

根據102(b)(1)(B)，若CIP案具有new matter的Claim的先前揭露內容（由CIP案發明人、共同發明人或他人直接或間接由CIP案發明人或共同發明人取得的揭露）早於其母案的揭露內容，可以排除母案為其先前技術。

(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
- (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.

- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)規定有效申請日在他人的專利申請日之後，不具新穎性，例外條款為102(b)(2)(A)(B)(C)，但這並非CIP案的情況，因此不列入考慮。

小結：
CIP案提出的時機，應該要在母案公開日後一年內，母案就不會成為CIP案的先前技術。
CIP案提出時，如果有其早於母案（公開日）的揭露，還可排除母案為先前技術。

否則，建議CIP案可另外新案申請，當然新增技術面對自己原本母案的揭露內容時仍應具備非顯而易知性，只是，至少不要自動連結自己的母案。

補充我國專利法審查基準「優先權」篇章中對美國CIP案的討論(updated on July 16, 2019)：CIP案新增部分為「第一次申請」，可以成為其他後申請案的優先權基礎案。

一些資料可參考：
CIP案申請討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/01/cip.html）
CIP母案可能為CIP案先前技術的討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/cipcip.html）

CIP案被自己母案阻礙的案例 - Santarus v. Par Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2012)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/10/cip-santarus-v-par-pharma-fed-cir-2012.html）

Ron

2019年1月4日星期五

「before」可以發生在同一天 - Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

大家都知道「時間/期限」對於專利申請等法律程序很重要，甚至可說是最重要的事情（之一），其中攸關權利與義務的規定都與時間有關，因此需要嚴格地定義與規定「時間」，但特別的是，再嚴格的規定下，仍有許多"彈性"，有些是因為人性上情理法需要兼備，有些也是因為「法規/語言」上的認知差異。

寫下本篇的動機是，同事問了一個「時間」的問題：提出「CA（Continuation Application，接續案）」的時間規定為何？簡單的回答是，「母案」還活著的時候（pending, alive）；或說「母案」處分前，也就是獲准專利與拋棄之前；那「獲准專利」到底是指「收到核准通知」、「繳交領證費」、「專利公告」，還是收到「專利證書」？

這些問題可以簡單看，卻也可能比想像中複雜，例如，完成申請還需要符合申請日的要件、接續案還要滿足112(a)撰寫與揭露規定、申請人資格、接續案的「母案」的定義、是否有主張多個優先權、"before"是指哪一天？到期日是指當日、前一天還是後一天？。先看看相關法條。

[法條]
35 U.S.C. § 120
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.

母案的發明人或共同發明人可以提出與母案有相同效果（指優先權）的接續案，但申請日要在先前申請案（母案）「patenting」、「abandonment」或「termination」之前（before），其中還有有關修正使之符合接續案資格的規定。
-------------------------------------------
MPEP 201.07 Continuation Application
...
At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the Office.
...

申請人可以在前申請案patenting, abandonment或termination之前的任何時刻提出接續案（CA），目的是提出新的一組專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application
...
1.53(b)
(b) Application filing requirements— Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.

所謂延續案（continuing application），包括CA、DIV與CIP（不含設計），取得申請日的申請案需要符合112規定的說明書，但可以不用具備申請專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------

-案例討論-

上述規定中，似乎明確，卻又有難以定義的「before」，以下案例就是討論到「35 U.S.C. § 120中規定申請CA的期限」，事實上也能及於DIV與CIP案的申請日規定。（編按，舉例來說，before Dec. 28, 2018，應該就是指Dec. 27, 2018當日以及之前的時間，這樣似乎是頗安全的解釋；另外，我可能在一些時候將CA案翻成"接續案"或是"延續案"，CA（本篇翻"延續案"，指延續先前申請案在不能增加新事物的前提下改寫專利範圍或部分說明書內容的一種"接續案（continuing application，泛指CA、CIP與DIV等）"）

Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：IMMERSION CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人：HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利：US6,429,846（平行案：PCT/US01/01486）、US7,148,875、US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105
判決日：June 21, 2016

本案涉及的議題是延續案（Continuation Application，CA）的申請日可以溯及其先前申請案（母案或更早），但條件是在「先前申請案patenting日之前（"filed before the patenting” of the earlier application"）」，看似清楚的一句話，卻仍產生了問題：CA案等接續案必須（has to）在先前申請案獲得專利（is patented）"至少一天"前提出申請？或是，在先前申請案獲得專利（patenting）之前提出申請？

那filing可以與patenting（指領證公告(issued)）同一天嗎？

"The question is whether, for that condition to be met, the continuing application has to be filed at least one day before the earlier application is patented, or whether an application may be “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application when both legal acts, filing and patenting, occur on the same day."

系爭專利'846案的申請歷史：2000/1/19申請，2002/8/6獲准專利；同時，申請人有件內容一樣PCT申請案PCT/US01/01486（申請日：2001/1/17），在2001/7/26公開（WO 01/54109）。在2002年8月之後，申請人Immersion提出一系列'846的接續案（35 U.S.C. § 120），但其中有一件爭議，就是後來獲准為US7,148,875的申請日為「2002/8/6」，即為其先前申請案'846的「領證公告日（issued date）」。另一平行的專利家族發生在WO ’109的接續案：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，說明書內容與'846家族一致。

US6,429,846「領證公告日（本案議題中的patenting date/patented date）」：2002/8/6

根據PAIR記錄，這個patenting date是USPTO登記「Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed」的日期，這天是：「領證費繳交（官方確認）後，發出領證通知後，官方記錄獲准專利權的那天」。

US7,148,875「申請日（filing date）」：2002/8/6

-訴訟把問題都掀開了-

專利權人Immersion於2012年對HTC提出侵權告訴，系爭專利為：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，被告HTC主張系爭專利無效，理由是這幾件的母案WO'109內容已經揭露於'846案中，不符35 U.S.C. § 102(b)規定。

其中議題是，因為Immersion提出了兩個平行的專利家族，如果這幾件對HTC提告的系爭專利'720、'181、'105無法溯及'875與'846的先前申請日優先權時，即彼此之間無法建立35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係時，可能就無法克服其另一平行專利家族WO'109已經揭示的內容導致的缺乏新穎性核駁理由。

這時，關鍵就是「中間是否有斷鏈」，也就是，'875案是否與'846保持著35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係？（'875案filing date ＝ '846案的patenting date）

根據地方法院的觀點，'875案不符35 U.S.C. § 120規定「filed before the patenting of '846 patent's application」，因為'875案的申請日就在'846案的領證公告日（patenting date）當天。這樣使得後案'875不能溯及前案'846案的申請日（2000/01/19），更導致本訴訟中系爭專利都面臨缺乏新穎性的無效威脅中（因為WO'109已經揭示所有特徵）。

原告Immersion提出上訴，挑戰地院對於35 U.S.C. § 120中「before」的解釋。

法院對這段的理解是，文意上並未規定後申請案申請日可以與前申請案取得專利（領證公告）的時間為「同一天」，反倒規定在領證公告「前（before）」才是！但其實法條並未規定所謂「前」或「後」是以「天（day）」為單位，這個理解就讓35 U.S.C. § 120有了模糊的解釋空間，也就讓法官解釋起來可以讓後申請案申請日與前申請案領證公告的「同一天」。（編按，也就是，在"同一天"也會發生"filed before the patenting"的情況，法條並未禁止「before」發生在同一天）

就一般理解，「before」的規定是「前一天」就要完成，特別是指CA、DIV、CIP等接續案的申請期限是在「母案處分前」，而且是「前一天或之前」。這也是被告HTC的主張。

爭議就是「before」是否可解釋為「on or before」?

一般認知是，on or before就是兩個時間的概念（二分法），on the same day，以及before the day，但法院認為"二分法"不是解決這個「時間關鍵」的方式，法律上相對嚴謹。（編按，也就是法院的視野不是如一般認定的單純，特別是涉及法定日期的問題，否則，也不會有本篇報導的需求！）

-歷史-

就美國法院而言，「歷史」的定義有決定性的影響，也就是過去的判決、判例或解釋都是要列入考慮，對於1952年開始施行的35 U.S.C. § 120，在它之前美國最高法院在案例「Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 317 (1864)」的意見中，因為針對「優先權日」的解釋建立了「same-day」的觀念。在Godfrey案例中，這位老兄先撤銷了一件先前提出申請的專利申請案，「同一天」重新提出了一個經過修改的申請案，法院對此意見是，如果申請人撤銷了自己的申請案，意欲是要同時提出新的請求（新的申請案），對於申請人而言，這兩個動作（petitions）應視為同一個「處置（transaction）」，法律上可視為連續的申請案（"both as constituting one continuous application, within the meaning of the law"），法院採取的解釋是，將較早申請案的優先權日提供給後續申請案（"giving the earlier application’s priority date to the successor application"）。

如此，產生了「同一天前後動作視為關聯而連續」的規則，也是後來法院採用的規則。也就成為1952年施行35 U.S.C. § 120的接續案的制度。

USPTO隨著也訂定37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)：
1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.

(a) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or an international application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and this section.
...

這個規定在提出取得先前申請案優勢的接續案時，並未排除「同一日/天」的情況。這裡也涉及要求後申請案要在「前後案copending」時提出申請的基本要件，續根據MPEP 211.01(b)規定，關於前後案為「copending（同時待審）」狀態的規定，這裡夠明確地提到："If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application."，就是如果先申請案公告為專利時，對於後申請案來說，如果在同一天或之前提出申請，仍符合「前後案copending」的要件。

MPEP 211.01(b) Claiming the Benefit of a Nonprovisional Application
I. COPENDENCY
When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application or with an intermediate nonprovisional application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application. If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application. See Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., 826 F.3d 1357, 1359, 119 USPQ2d 1083, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2016), holding that a child application was entitled to the benefit of a parent application where the child application was filed on the same day that a patent issued on the parent application. Patents usually will be published within four weeks of payment of the issue fee. Applicants are encouraged to file any continuing applications no later than the date the issue fee is paid, to avoid issuance of the prior application before the continuing application is filed.
...

答案已經出現：後申請案，如CA、DIV、CIP案，提出申請的最後期限是所倚賴的「先前申請案（母案）」的領證公告日（同一天/日）（same-day continuations/filing was before patenting within a single day）。

-實務-

因為「patenting date（領證公告日）」有「不容易預期」的問題，若申請人有接續案佈局的需求，USPTO應通知先前申請案（母案）的預期領證公告日（expected issuance date）。

因此，可以在先前申請案（母案）核准通知、繳交領證費、接獲領證通知時，還可提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案；甚至，到最後官方登記領證公告日的當日或之前提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案都還來得及。

my two cents:
看來簡單的「before」仍是有解釋空間，因為法律（35 U.S.C. § 120）文意上並未以「日」為單位，雖似咬文嚼字，但也是站在申請人/發明人的立場，實質是法官給了我們更寬廣的空間。

不曉得這個判決認定的「before」是否可以適用其他法規上，所以，很多規定是寫為"before or on the same day"，甚至還故意註解排除「同一天」，例如：

MPEP 609.04(b) Timing Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement
...
II. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FILED AFTER I. ABOVE BUT BEFORE MAILING OF FINAL ACTION, NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE, OR AN EX PARTE QUAYLE ACTION (37 CFR 1.97(C))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed after the period specified in subsection I. above, but prior to the date the prosecution of the application closes, i.e., before (not on the same day as the mailing date of any of the following:
...

本篇是新年2019年第一篇PO文，聖經有句話：「忘記背後，努力面前的（腓立比書3:13）」，英文：「forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead.」，這句話砥礪我們，不論過去如何，前面的（真理）才是我們要努力的。

判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1574.Opinion.6-17-2016.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/kv64zt77ctk4yx5lab5qvbuhbqblt166）

資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/patentees-includes-afterwards.html

Ron

訂閱：文章 (Atom)

2025年3月6日 星期四

2024年12月13日 星期五

2024年9月17日 星期二

2023年5月11日 星期四

2023年4月25日 星期二

2019年11月7日 星期四

2019年7月15日 星期一

2019年1月4日 星期五