FTO檢索（Freedom To Operate Search）筆記。
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Search，中文可翻「自由營運檢索」，按照字面意思是，為了能更自由地營運，要避免專利干擾，因此在產品或服務推出時，需要先排除潛在專利產生的障礙，而就有「營運前的檢索」的需求。
對照常用的講法就是「產品侵權風險評估」，評估的基礎在「專利前案檢索」、「專利地圖」、「申請專利範圍解釋」、「專利有效性分析」、「侵權鑑定」等，所以專利事務所就是在這上頭提供服務。
更進一步地，FTO檢索的目的為針對了實際要推出的產品與服務評估專利侵權風險，之後的措施除了迴避設計與充實本身專利佈局外，可以在推出產品或服務前已經獲得同意或授權，甚至創造出「使用先前技術」或使用「先前專利揭露但未記載於請求項的技術」的條件。
FTO檢索後一些積極的作為：
(1) 充實本身專利佈局：新申請專利、購買、授權；
(2) 等待關鍵專利過期，使用過期專利技術，可主張先前技術阻卻（排除侵權判斷中的均等論）；
(3) 迴避設計；
(4) 不在侵權風險高區域販售或製造。
參考資料：
https://ip.com/services/freedom-to-operate/
http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/freedom-to-operate-fto-infringement-search/
https://www.patsnap.com/blog/using-freedom-to-operate-search-fto-avoid-patent-infringement
Ron
2019年8月14日 星期三
2019年8月8日 星期四
關於added subject matter的判斷標準的歐洲訴願案 - T 0598/16
歐洲專利訴願：T 0598/16（時間：25.6.2019）
本案訴願議題有：
(1)新增專利標的（added subject matter）
(2)揭露不足（insufficiency of disclosure）
(3)進步性不足（lack of inventive step）
案件資訊：
訴願號：T 0598/ 16
歐洲專利申請號：10180160.3
歐洲專利公開號：2296454
專利權人：NeoGraf Solutions, LLC
異議人：SGL Carbon SE
相關法條：EPC 1973 Art. 54, 56, 76(1), 100(a)、EPC Art. 123(2)
議題之一為系爭專利在異議程序中產生「interlocutory decision」，也就是申請人在異議程序中提出修正產生了「added subject matter」的議題，加上揭露不足與缺乏進步性等議題。根據Article 101(3)(a)EPC規定，在異議程序（opposition）中，當申請人為了維持專利權而提出修正時，需要符合相關規定，異議人對此議題提出訴願。
列舉系爭專利有爭議的Claims 1, 4, 9-10，如下，關於Claim 1界定的熱管理系統，訴願委員會加入(a)~(e)來方面說明。
1. A thermal management system (10) comprising a heat source having an external surface (100a) and a thermal interface (20) comprising:
(a) an anisotropic flexible graphite sheet formed of compressed particles of exfoliated natural graphite and
(b) having a planar area greater than the area of the external surface of the heat source,
the flexible graphite sheet
(c) having first and second major planar surfaces and
(d) having axes of higher thermal conductivity parallel to said major planar surfaces,
characterized by
(e) a first one of said major planar surfaces being in direct operative contact with the heat source.
4. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein the ratio of thermal conductivity of the anisotropic graphite sheet parallel to one to the major surfaces as compared to transverse to the major surface is at least about 20.
9. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 7 further comprising a heat sink (30) which comprises a graphite article shaped so as to provide a heat collection surface and at least one heat dissipation surface, the heat collection surface of the heat sink being in operative contact with a second one of the said major planar surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet.
10. A thermal management system (10) according to claim 9 wherein the graphite article comprises anisotropic flexible sheets of compressed particles of exfoliated graphite laminated into a unitary article.
訴願決定：
對於異議程序中的修正，引起程序中的法律議題，訴願人（原異議人）主張這些專利範圍已經超出原申請時說明書範圍，如以上引述Claim 1的步驟(d)與(e)，Claim 4的"about 20"，Claim 9的"graphite article"、"in operative contact with..."等，以及Claim 10的"anisotropic flexible sheets..."。
（重要，這裡可以"稍微"理解歐洲訴願委員會對是否超出的"寬容度"）
歐洲專利訴願委員會的決定是，修正為「從申請時說明書中內容所顯露出的（emerge）」；並且同意說明書描述的結構「暗示（imply）」了其中石墨片的物理特性；訴願委員會認為本案修正可以從申請時說明書「直接也明確地而推論（derivable）得出」；訴願委員會同意請求項9中的用語"in operative contact with"的連接關係「類似的揭露（similar disclosure）」於原說明書（包括母案）中；以及，特別的是，訴願委員會也會考量相關領域對於一些元件的一般理解，而給予"合理而寬容"的解釋空間。
對於Claim 4描述的"...at least about 20"，訴願委員特別地提出，不論說明書有沒有這句話，但原申請時Claim 6有一樣的描述，因此Claim 4沒有增加新特徵，可以直接而明確地從原申請時說明書所推論，且如說明書段落0020，已經有相當的描述："[0020] With respect to thermal properties, the thermal conductivity of a flexible graphite sheet in a direction parallel to the upper and lower surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet is relatively high, while it is relatively very low in the "c" direction transverse to the upper and lower surfaces, by a ratio that can approach 20 to one or higher."。
Claims 9-10也有類似的判斷原則。
可知，判斷是否有不合規定的added subject matter，還可以依據其他「請求項原本的描述」，以及申請時說明書，甚至還考量了更早的「母案」。
另外提出其中一個有趣的議題：「系爭專利是否僅是解決相關技術問題的另一替代方案（merely provide an alternative thermal management system）」而已？
訴願決定是，系爭專利解決了相關熱管理系統的效率，並解決技術問題而達成特定技術效果，不認為僅是解決相關問題的另一替代方案而已！
其餘新穎性與進步性議題不在此贅述。
最終撤銷訴願意見，也就是原專利權人勝訴。
my two cents:
從本篇訴願決定可知（仍需要其他案件相互印證），歐洲審查時，對於added subject matter的認定仍是十分有彈性，不如印象中的嚴格。
[涉及法條]
Article 101 EPC
Examination of the opposition – Revocation or maintenance of the European patent
(1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, whether at least one ground for opposition under Article 100 prejudices the maintenance of the European patent. During this examination, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations on communications from another party or issued by itself.
(2) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the European patent, it shall revoke the patent. Otherwise, it shall reject the opposition.
(3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates
(a) meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided that the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations are fulfilled;
(b) do not meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall revoke the patent.
訴願決定：
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t160598eu1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/4k8prrdh5vkx4yzlvge4rvyy7q65ohn8）
Ron
本案訴願議題有：
(1)新增專利標的（added subject matter）
(2)揭露不足（insufficiency of disclosure）
(3)進步性不足（lack of inventive step）
案件資訊：
訴願號：T 0598/ 16
歐洲專利申請號：10180160.3
歐洲專利公開號：2296454
專利權人：NeoGraf Solutions, LLC
異議人：SGL Carbon SE
相關法條：EPC 1973 Art. 54, 56, 76(1), 100(a)、EPC Art. 123(2)
議題之一為系爭專利在異議程序中產生「interlocutory decision」，也就是申請人在異議程序中提出修正產生了「added subject matter」的議題，加上揭露不足與缺乏進步性等議題。根據Article 101(3)(a)EPC規定，在異議程序（opposition）中，當申請人為了維持專利權而提出修正時，需要符合相關規定，異議人對此議題提出訴願。
列舉系爭專利有爭議的Claims 1, 4, 9-10，如下，關於Claim 1界定的熱管理系統，訴願委員會加入(a)~(e)來方面說明。
1. A thermal management system (10) comprising a heat source having an external surface (100a) and a thermal interface (20) comprising:
(a) an anisotropic flexible graphite sheet formed of compressed particles of exfoliated natural graphite and
(b) having a planar area greater than the area of the external surface of the heat source,
the flexible graphite sheet
(c) having first and second major planar surfaces and
(d) having axes of higher thermal conductivity parallel to said major planar surfaces,
characterized by
(e) a first one of said major planar surfaces being in direct operative contact with the heat source.
4. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein the ratio of thermal conductivity of the anisotropic graphite sheet parallel to one to the major surfaces as compared to transverse to the major surface is at least about 20.
9. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 7 further comprising a heat sink (30) which comprises a graphite article shaped so as to provide a heat collection surface and at least one heat dissipation surface, the heat collection surface of the heat sink being in operative contact with a second one of the said major planar surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet.
10. A thermal management system (10) according to claim 9 wherein the graphite article comprises anisotropic flexible sheets of compressed particles of exfoliated graphite laminated into a unitary article.
訴願決定：
對於異議程序中的修正，引起程序中的法律議題，訴願人（原異議人）主張這些專利範圍已經超出原申請時說明書範圍，如以上引述Claim 1的步驟(d)與(e)，Claim 4的"about 20"，Claim 9的"graphite article"、"in operative contact with..."等，以及Claim 10的"anisotropic flexible sheets..."。
（重要，這裡可以"稍微"理解歐洲訴願委員會對是否超出的"寬容度"）
歐洲專利訴願委員會的決定是，修正為「從申請時說明書中內容所顯露出的（emerge）」；並且同意說明書描述的結構「暗示（imply）」了其中石墨片的物理特性；訴願委員會認為本案修正可以從申請時說明書「直接也明確地而推論（derivable）得出」；訴願委員會同意請求項9中的用語"in operative contact with"的連接關係「類似的揭露（similar disclosure）」於原說明書（包括母案）中；以及，特別的是，訴願委員會也會考量相關領域對於一些元件的一般理解，而給予"合理而寬容"的解釋空間。
對於Claim 4描述的"...at least about 20"，訴願委員特別地提出，不論說明書有沒有這句話，但原申請時Claim 6有一樣的描述，因此Claim 4沒有增加新特徵，可以直接而明確地從原申請時說明書所推論，且如說明書段落0020，已經有相當的描述："[0020] With respect to thermal properties, the thermal conductivity of a flexible graphite sheet in a direction parallel to the upper and lower surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet is relatively high, while it is relatively very low in the "c" direction transverse to the upper and lower surfaces, by a ratio that can approach 20 to one or higher."。
Claims 9-10也有類似的判斷原則。
可知，判斷是否有不合規定的added subject matter，還可以依據其他「請求項原本的描述」，以及申請時說明書，甚至還考量了更早的「母案」。
另外提出其中一個有趣的議題：「系爭專利是否僅是解決相關技術問題的另一替代方案（merely provide an alternative thermal management system）」而已？
訴願決定是，系爭專利解決了相關熱管理系統的效率，並解決技術問題而達成特定技術效果，不認為僅是解決相關問題的另一替代方案而已！
其餘新穎性與進步性議題不在此贅述。
最終撤銷訴願意見，也就是原專利權人勝訴。
my two cents:
從本篇訴願決定可知（仍需要其他案件相互印證），歐洲審查時，對於added subject matter的認定仍是十分有彈性，不如印象中的嚴格。
[涉及法條]
Article 101 EPC
Examination of the opposition – Revocation or maintenance of the European patent
(1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, whether at least one ground for opposition under Article 100 prejudices the maintenance of the European patent. During this examination, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations on communications from another party or issued by itself.
(2) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the European patent, it shall revoke the patent. Otherwise, it shall reject the opposition.
(3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates
(a) meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided that the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations are fulfilled;
(b) do not meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall revoke the patent.
訴願決定：
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t160598eu1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/4k8prrdh5vkx4yzlvge4rvyy7q65ohn8）
Ron
2019年8月7日 星期三
EPO Quality Report 2018
檔案在http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/79B3608B5B4D3F71C125842D0040675A/$FILE/quality_report_2018_en.pdf，這裡摘錄一些內容。
EPO組織架構：
整體案量（檢索+審查+異議程序）逐年上升：
從申請到訴願的時序：
這個數據很重要，從申請到接收檢索報告平均要花4.4個月，比設定的期限還早；審查時間平均需要22.3個月，近兩年，希望2020年可以降低到1年內；異議程序則要18.6個月，設定的期限為15個月完成審查。
文中很多針對各個階段的滿意度調查，整體滿意度頗高。
在此一提「歐洲專利加速審查（PACE）」，EPO在申請人提出PACE加速審查請求後，會於3個月內作出審查意見，核駁或核准。2018年平均為2.8個月。
以下提出幾個審查的專利要件的整體滿意度表現，首先是「明確性」，在各個技術領域中，非常滿意的比例最高，表示多數人對EPO針對明確性的要求都很滿意，因此，如果EPO專利被認為不明確，恐怕自己要檢討。
針對「進步性（inventive step）」審查，明顯看出每個技術領域中有不小的比例表示「太嚴格」，表示很「鬆」的不多，這大約也是我對EPO審查意見的感覺，對於進步性的要求頗高，但是，常常在OA中「異常友善地」告知我們如何改善與修改方向，這是值得讚賞的地方。
在EPO審查意見中，有個特別的議題是「增加專利標的/特徵（added subject matter）」，EPO在審查過程中對於申請人修正新增的部分頗為敏感，我的意見是，如果新增部分為「建構在原本請求項範圍」的「進一步特徵」，是可以允許的，若新增部分為「額外新增的技術特徵」，就看審查委員的容忍度到哪裡，因為EPO審查程序是先執行「檢索」，如果新增特徵超出檢索範圍，就有可能不被允許。
對此「增加專利特徵」的調查，各領域一致地有一半的比例認為「太嚴格」。
「電腦實現發明（computer-implemented invention）」，可指軟體發明，針對這類發明中的「技術內容」判斷常常是爭執之處，例如，如果利用電腦實現一些非技術的步驟，常被認為沒有技術手段，如果利用電腦實現商業方法，也會被認為沒有技術貢獻，如果利用電腦執行了有具有程序描述的發明，則可以說服審查委員具有技術手段。這樣的審查滿意度，至少到2018年覺得過於嚴格的比例已經下降。
對於異議程序而言，因為這幾年有逐年加快的進步，因此滿意度頗高。
其他參考：
歐洲專利加速審查（PACE）筆記 (Part I)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/03/pace.html）
歐洲專利加速審查（PACE）筆記 (Part 2)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/03/pace-part-2.html）
取得歐洲專利的指導方針（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/06/blog-post_27.html）
Ron
2019年8月6日 星期二
可否在一個訴訟中請求專利無效與更正發明人 - Heat Technologies, Inc. v. Papierfabrik August Koehler SE (Fed. Cir. 2019)
有關發明人
Heat Technologies, Inc. v. Papierfabrik August Koehler SE (Fed. Cir. 2019)此案例關於上訴程序中有關28 U.S.C. 1292(b)的議題：訴訟中的決定（Interlocutory decisions），其中關於「誰是發明人（inventorship）」的爭議！
案件資訊：
原告：Heat Technologies, Inc.
被告/目前專利權人/請願人：Papierfabrik August Koehler SE
系爭專利：US9,851,146
本案緣起2018年Heat Tech對Koehler提出侵權告訴，原告Heat Tech向喬治亞聯邦法院提起更正「發明人」（35 U.S.C. § 256），主張系爭專利的發明人有誤，更主張因為這個錯誤產生的不當得利與損害賠償。
其中涉及的是訴訟中的中間議題（28 U.S.C. 1292(b)），就是在訴訟中提起另一個法律問題，若有充分理由，可以終止訴訟。
US9,851,146關於一種乾燥纖維材料的機器，發明人為Heat Tech的老闆Plavnik，當年將此發明告訴了Koehler，作為合作評估的目的，認為系爭專利的內容幾乎都是當時告訴Koehler的內容。
Heat Tech在地方法院提起「專利無效/缺乏新穎性與非顯而易見性」，以及要求更正發明人、拿回專利權、on-sale bar，以及要求不當得利與損害賠償。但是Koehler要求法院撤銷Heat Tech的請求，認為Heat Tech請求不當，不能一方面主張專利無效，一方面又要求更正發明人。
主要議題是，Koehler要求(1)撤銷Heat Tech更正發明人的請求；(2)引用35 U.S.C. § 256，認為此法不能同時用於更正發明人，又在此基礎下主張專利無效，還有on-sale bar。
地方法院同意Koehler請願，同意在28 U.S.C. 1292(b)規定下終止訴訟，有三個條件：
Section 1292(b) requires three criteria for certification:
(1) the otherwise non-appealable order must be one that “involves a controlling question of law”;
(2) “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”; and
(3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
(1)除非不可上訴的法院命令包括了控制性法律議題；（本案沒有）
(2)對不同意見的歧異有實質（上訴）理由；
(3)對法院命令立即上訴可以促使終止訴訟。
因此，地院同意Koehler終止地院訴訟而上訴CAFC，其中並非要解決「誰是發明人」，而是要確認一個法律議題：可否在確認發明人證明為真時，又可同時主張專利無效？
雖然CAFC不認為他們需要審理這個上訴議題，因為條件不滿足28 U.S.C. 1292(b)成立的三項條件，但仍作出一些意見，包括，認為地方法院正確地作出「儘管專利權有效有其他挑戰，但仍可進行發明人更正議題」決定。
也就是說，35 U.S.C. § 256更正發明人的規定並未與其他專利無效議題有關，法院作出發明人更正決定也不是建立在專利權有效的前提。
"the court’s jurisdiction under § 256 does not depend on whether the patent may be shown to be invalid."
前例：
[相關法條]
28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.
35 U.S.C. § 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.
參考資料：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/inventorship-challenges-invalidity.html
Ron
2019年8月1日 星期四
這個多議題的訴訟對Amazon有利 - Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)
原告/上訴人/專利權人：INNOVATION SCIENCES, LLC
被告/被上訴人：AMAZON.COM, INC.
系爭專利：RE46,140, US9,369,844, US8,135,398
判決文：July 2, 2019
在地方法院的決定包括：系爭專利'140不具專利適格性（違反35 U.S.C. § 101）、各方同意對'844侵權不成立，以及地院同意對'398不侵權的簡易判決。
RE46,140關於跨國電子商務的技術，技術針對跨國電子商務傳送信用資料的資訊安全措施，當買家購買電子商務伺服器提供商品清單的產品，信用資料提供給另一負責安全性的伺服器，例如Claim 17：
17. An online method for a payment server to support online buying over the Internet, the online method comprising:
US9,369,844關於在網路上傳遞資料的安全技術，Claim 28為執行電子通訊的無線裝置，包括有處理器、無線電晶片、記憶體與相關指令。
28. A wireless device configured to facilitate electronic communication of information, the wireless device comprising:
US8,135,398關於多方多媒體通訊的技術，專利範圍Claim 1即關於在裝置之間傳遞內容的方法，接收多媒體後轉換並再生多媒體內容，傳送轉換的內容元件給目標裝置，建立通道與傳輸多媒體內容。
1. A method for conversion and sending of content to devices, the method comprising:
35 U.S.C. § 101議題：
面對專利適格性，即採用TWO-STEP測試，先判斷是否為抽象，再判斷專利元件的個別或其組合是否具有可以轉換抽象為可專利應用的額外元件（"the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application."）。
地院認為'014案專利範圍為抽象，專利範圍的特徵僅在「switch，切換買家信用資訊執行支付」的技術，缺乏可以轉換為可專利議題的「進步特徵」。
CAFC法官認為，系爭專利'014範圍僅描述「功能、結果導向（functional, result-oriented）」的用語，僅是不可專利的用語而沒有改善習知技術，認為沒有超越抽象概念的本質；加上，法官更認為'014使用了習知的網路交易系統，所採用的伺服器也是一般執行已知、常規與習知的活動（"There is no inventive concept in the claim’s use of a generic payment server “to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry."），因此認為'014相關系爭專利範圍不具專利適格性。
編按，以下摘錄內容為很好的提醒：
侵權議題：
經解釋專利範圍後，法院認為Amazon對'844侵權不成立。根據法院意見，不侵權理由之一是'844限定在單一無線裝置，但說明書描述以兩個裝置（DCSM與user equipment）執行監控與處理支付程序的動作，而另有實施例表示使用者可以使用wireless HUB或user equipment實現支付，傳送支付請求至wireless HUB，如此，因為說明書描述了幾個實施例，可以合理解釋Claim 28，認為發明人在本項的意圖是僅使用單一裝置。
對於'398也是解釋專利範圍的問題，參考上述Claim 1內容，法院認為多媒體內容通過無線通訊網路傳送到目的地裝置，其中轉換與再生多媒體內容是根據目的地裝置的訊號格式，而且轉換是在目的地裝置接收到內容之前，與專利權人認知不同，沒有證據支持最終目的地不需要被設定，直到多媒體內容傳送到終端裝置。
如此，最終判決是'014系爭專利範圍不具專利適格性、對'844侵權不成立，以及對'398侵權不成立，但其中仍有差異，因此部分撤回、部分發回重審，以及部分確認地院判決。
my two cents:
從本案可知，在商業方法中，「有沒有改善習知技術」成為通過101的重要門檻之一，也就是專利範圍、說明書的描述不能僅在「表面」用語的描述，還要更深刻的「技術描述」，否則會被認為僅是「功能性」描述。
我認為（後見之明），'014不是不能專利，從說明書的篇幅來看可以簡單認知沒有足夠的描述，把其中重點"switching"講得太少，應該提到其中切換機制、判斷條件、網路連線方法、使用者與連線識別資訊...，以及來往訊息的內容等，如此，有可能至少避免被法官認定是執行習知、常規的活動而已。
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1495.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/p2pttc8ybwcduo4vkvu0879qw38geg5r）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/enforcing-payment-abstract.html
原告/上訴人/專利權人：INNOVATION SCIENCES, LLC
被告/被上訴人：AMAZON.COM, INC.
系爭專利：RE46,140, US9,369,844, US8,135,398
判決文：July 2, 2019
在地方法院的決定包括：系爭專利'140不具專利適格性（違反35 U.S.C. § 101）、各方同意對'844侵權不成立，以及地院同意對'398不侵權的簡易判決。
RE46,140關於跨國電子商務的技術，技術針對跨國電子商務傳送信用資料的資訊安全措施，當買家購買電子商務伺服器提供商品清單的產品，信用資料提供給另一負責安全性的伺服器，例如Claim 17：
17. An online method for a payment server to support online buying over the Internet, the online method comprising:
receiving, at the payment server, credit card payment information transmitted from a buyer for payment of one or more items identified for purchase from a website listing the items, wherein the credit card payment information is received after online communication of the buyer has been switched from the website listing the items to a website supported by the payment server, wherein the switching of the online communication of the buyer is after an indication from the buyer to buy the one or more of the items;
sending the credit card payment information to an established financial channel;
receiving a credit card payment processing decision from the established financial channel; and
sending credit card payment confirmation information;
wherein:
transmission of information about the items for purchase between a server supporting the website listing the items and the buyer, before occurrence of the indication to buy, is less secure than transmission, from the buyer, of the credit card payment information, the transmission of the credit card payment information being performed under a security protocol for encryption of the credit card payment information, said security protocol providing at least 128 bit encryption for the credit card payment information;
the payment server has a respective IP address different from a respective IP address of the server supporting the website listing the items;
the sending of the credit card payment confirmation information updates the server supporting the website listing the items, with respect to the purchase of the one or more items identified by the buyer, in support of a real-time purchasing/sales environment on the website listing the items;
the server supporting the website listing the items is in one of a first nation state or a second nation state; and
the payment server is in the first nation state.
US9,369,844關於在網路上傳遞資料的安全技術，Claim 28為執行電子通訊的無線裝置，包括有處理器、無線電晶片、記憶體與相關指令。
28. A wireless device configured to facilitate electronic communication of information, the wireless device comprising:
a processor;
a wireless radio chip containing information of a unique identifier corresponding to the wireless device;
a memory configured to store program code that includes instructions executable by said processor, said instructions comprising:
instructions for transmitting, through a wireless transmission channel, an item status signal to provide information regarding an updated condition of a merchandise,
wherein the wireless transmission channel is established in a local wireless communication network in response to an indication of the updated condition and the wireless transmission channel is established for transmission of the item status signal by the wireless device; and
wherein the unique identifier corresponding to the wireless device is recognized during a processing of a purchase request for the merchandise regarding the updated condition based on a successful transmission of the item status signal;
wherein the purchase request for the merchandise is identified based on recognition of the unique identifier;
wherein information of a user account is communicated through a communication channel to accommodate the processing of the purchase request; wherein the user account is associated with the wireless device; and wherein the wireless transmission channel is separate from the communication channel, the information of the user account comprising the information for the processing the purchase request; and
wherein the wireless device is designated to transmit the item status signal.
US8,135,398關於多方多媒體通訊的技術，專利範圍Claim 1即關於在裝置之間傳遞內容的方法，接收多媒體後轉換並再生多媒體內容，傳送轉換的內容元件給目標裝置，建立通道與傳輸多媒體內容。
1. A method for conversion and sending of content to devices, the method comprising:
receiving a multimedia content item originated from a source located outside a home location and destined for a destination device located within the home location, wherein the multimedia content item is received through a wireless communication network and from a wireless terminal device;
converting the multimedia content item for reproduction according to a determined signal format of the destination device; and
sending the converted multimedia content item to the destination device, wherein the destination device is a television, and wherein the sending comprises:
establishing a predetermined channel operatively in communication with the destination device
and transporting the multimedia content item to the destination device via said predetermined channel,
for the destination device to display the multimedia content item in conjunction with a navigational command to the destination device for the predetermined channel.
35 U.S.C. § 101議題：
面對專利適格性，即採用TWO-STEP測試，先判斷是否為抽象，再判斷專利元件的個別或其組合是否具有可以轉換抽象為可專利應用的額外元件（"the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application."）。
地院認為'014案專利範圍為抽象，專利範圍的特徵僅在「switch，切換買家信用資訊執行支付」的技術，缺乏可以轉換為可專利議題的「進步特徵」。
CAFC法官認為，系爭專利'014範圍僅描述「功能、結果導向（functional, result-oriented）」的用語，僅是不可專利的用語而沒有改善習知技術，認為沒有超越抽象概念的本質；加上，法官更認為'014使用了習知的網路交易系統，所採用的伺服器也是一般執行已知、常規與習知的活動（"There is no inventive concept in the claim’s use of a generic payment server “to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry."），因此認為'014相關系爭專利範圍不具專利適格性。
編按，以下摘錄內容為很好的提醒：
侵權議題：
經解釋專利範圍後，法院認為Amazon對'844侵權不成立。根據法院意見，不侵權理由之一是'844限定在單一無線裝置，但說明書描述以兩個裝置（DCSM與user equipment）執行監控與處理支付程序的動作，而另有實施例表示使用者可以使用wireless HUB或user equipment實現支付，傳送支付請求至wireless HUB，如此，因為說明書描述了幾個實施例，可以合理解釋Claim 28，認為發明人在本項的意圖是僅使用單一裝置。
對於'398也是解釋專利範圍的問題，參考上述Claim 1內容，法院認為多媒體內容通過無線通訊網路傳送到目的地裝置，其中轉換與再生多媒體內容是根據目的地裝置的訊號格式，而且轉換是在目的地裝置接收到內容之前，與專利權人認知不同，沒有證據支持最終目的地不需要被設定，直到多媒體內容傳送到終端裝置。
如此，最終判決是'014系爭專利範圍不具專利適格性、對'844侵權不成立，以及對'398侵權不成立，但其中仍有差異，因此部分撤回、部分發回重審，以及部分確認地院判決。
my two cents:
從本案可知，在商業方法中，「有沒有改善習知技術」成為通過101的重要門檻之一，也就是專利範圍、說明書的描述不能僅在「表面」用語的描述，還要更深刻的「技術描述」，否則會被認為僅是「功能性」描述。
我認為（後見之明），'014不是不能專利，從說明書的篇幅來看可以簡單認知沒有足夠的描述，把其中重點"switching"講得太少，應該提到其中切換機制、判斷條件、網路連線方法、使用者與連線識別資訊...，以及來往訊息的內容等，如此，有可能至少避免被法官認定是執行習知、常規的活動而已。
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1495.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/p2pttc8ybwcduo4vkvu0879qw38geg5r）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/enforcing-payment-abstract.html
Ron
2019年7月31日 星期三
再領證案似乎有更嚴格的專利範圍標準 - Forum US v. Flow Valve (Fed. Cir. 2019)
有關再領證案的揭露標準 - Forum US v. Flow Valve (Fed. Cir. 2019)
一般已知在母案的基礎上提出「再領證（reissue）」是要「重開審查程序」，目的之一是可以再次"實質"修正專利範圍，甚至包括「擴張專利範圍」，還可以藉此繼續佈局後續專利，另一目的是，作為訴訟前的準備（例如，發現專利範圍不夠好到可以告贏對手，即提再領證"優化"專利），也包括再次檢驗專利權。
案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人：FORUM US, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
被告/上訴人/專利權人：FLOW VALVE, LLC, AN OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
系爭專利：RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)
判決日：June 17, 2019
本案於專利權人Flow Valve於地院對被告Forum提起侵權訴訟開始，地院法官判定系爭專利無效，理由是系爭專利為「再領證」專利，但是專利範圍並未被其母案所揭露，專利權人上訴CAFC。
[再領證法條] 35 U.S.C. § 251
35 U.S.C. 251 REISSUE OF DEFECTIVE PATENTS
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)關於油氣公司需要的工具，工件支撐組件的主體包括內部工具組件通道，以及這些通道連接的開口，有支撐此主體的結構，加上多個由主體支撐的心軸（arbor），每個心軸具有軸，與延伸部的一個基準軸重合。這個結構可以在車床上旋轉時利用心軸來保持工件。
RE45,878的Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
a workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body member having an internal workpiece channel, the body member having a plurality of body openings communicating with the internal workpiece channel;
means supported by the body member for positioning a workpiece in the internal workpiece channel so that extending workpiece portions of the workpiece extend from selected ones of the body openings;
a plurality of arbors supported by the body member, each arbor having an axis coincident with a datum axis of one of the extending workpiece portions; and
means for rotating the workpiece supporting assembly about the axis of a selected one of the arbors.
Claim 14（Reissue新增"workpiece supporting assembly"，減少了元件："arbor"）：
14. A workpiece supporting assembly for securing an elbow during a machining process that is performed on the elbow by operation of a workpiece machining implement, the workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body having an internal surface defining a channel, the internal surface sized to receive a medial portion of the elbow when the elbow is operably disposed in the channel; and
a support that is selectively positionable to secure the elbow in the workpiece supporting assembly, the body pivotable to a first pivoted position, the body sized so that a first end of the elbow extends from the channel and beyond the body so the first end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process, the body pivotable to a second position and sized so that a second end of the elbow extends from the channel beyond the body so the second end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process.
母案Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
本案主要爭議是「再領證」案通過修正新增的專利範圍Claim 14等，在最大範圍Claim 14中相對於母案專利範圍刪除了元件"a plurality of arbors"，如以下元件58與60：
法院與被上訴人（原侵權被告）都提出系爭專利說明書揭露了以兩個心軸作為固定中心的設計：
在再領證案中，專利權人通過修正擴增了專利範圍，讓所主張的工件支撐組件不用心軸（arbor）也可以，但也引來專利不被原母案申請時揭露內容的無效理由。如此，地方法院認為再領證案的專利範圍不被母案說明書支持。
提出最高法院標準"Industrial Chemicals and Antares"：
在CAFC審查時，考量了35 U.S.C. § 251規定，雖法條同意專利通過再領證程序擴增專利範圍，但法院認為，當再領證案提出了新的且經擴增的專利範圍，相關的專利範圍的要求並不能僅被原本說明書、圖式或模型所建議或指出（suggested or indicated）而已，更應該出現（appear）在原本專利中（可能是建構了發明的部分），被原本專利所涵蓋。
"(“To warrant new and broader claims in a reissue, such claims must not be merely suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or models, but it must further appear from the original patent that they constitute parts or portions of the invention, which were intended or sought to be covered or secured by such original patent.”"
如此，法院認為經過擴增專利範圍的再領證案，應不僅於要求"建議或指出（suggest or indicate）"再領證發明而已！而是要「出現（appear）」在被原本說明書涵蓋的"表面"。
"Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “it must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.”"
換句話說，原專利應該要明確而無誤地揭露新的再領證發明。
"the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.”"
即便專利權人主張相關領域一般技術人員可以從說明書中理解所述「心軸」為一個選擇性元件，但法院仍認為「在專利說明書或其圖式中沒有揭露發明中的「心軸」為可選擇的特徵」，即便相關領域一般技術人員可以理解該發明可以不用「心軸」，判決再領證案不符合「Industrial Chemicals and Antares」標準。
my two cents:
再領證案因為提供專利權人可以擴增專利範圍的機會，但可理解地應該要給予更嚴格的要求，本篇雖是針對再領證案，但是仍可學到：(1)說明書反覆強調的特徵不能被忽略；(2)說明書可以加入更多可能性，將來專利範圍可以更多彈性；(3)一般專利審查可以從相關領域一般技術人員可理解的方向調整，但是再領證案可能要用「the same invention」的標準來看。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1765.Opinion.6-17-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/h6rayxy4cigcw8j6ng8nqy4h6b7s2yjy）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/heightened-description-standard.html
Ron
一般已知在母案的基礎上提出「再領證（reissue）」是要「重開審查程序」，目的之一是可以再次"實質"修正專利範圍，甚至包括「擴張專利範圍」，還可以藉此繼續佈局後續專利，另一目的是，作為訴訟前的準備（例如，發現專利範圍不夠好到可以告贏對手，即提再領證"優化"專利），也包括再次檢驗專利權。
案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人：FORUM US, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
被告/上訴人/專利權人：FLOW VALVE, LLC, AN OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
系爭專利：RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)
判決日：June 17, 2019
本案於專利權人Flow Valve於地院對被告Forum提起侵權訴訟開始，地院法官判定系爭專利無效，理由是系爭專利為「再領證」專利，但是專利範圍並未被其母案所揭露，專利權人上訴CAFC。
[再領證法條] 35 U.S.C. § 251
35 U.S.C. 251 REISSUE OF DEFECTIVE PATENTS
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
RE45,878 (母案：US8,215,213)關於油氣公司需要的工具，工件支撐組件的主體包括內部工具組件通道，以及這些通道連接的開口，有支撐此主體的結構，加上多個由主體支撐的心軸（arbor），每個心軸具有軸，與延伸部的一個基準軸重合。這個結構可以在車床上旋轉時利用心軸來保持工件。
RE45,878的Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
a workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body member having an internal workpiece channel, the body member having a plurality of body openings communicating with the internal workpiece channel;
means supported by the body member for positioning a workpiece in the internal workpiece channel so that extending workpiece portions of the workpiece extend from selected ones of the body openings;
a plurality of arbors supported by the body member, each arbor having an axis coincident with a datum axis of one of the extending workpiece portions; and
means for rotating the workpiece supporting assembly about the axis of a selected one of the arbors.
Claim 14（Reissue新增"workpiece supporting assembly"，減少了元件："arbor"）：
14. A workpiece supporting assembly for securing an elbow during a machining process that is performed on the elbow by operation of a workpiece machining implement, the workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body having an internal surface defining a channel, the internal surface sized to receive a medial portion of the elbow when the elbow is operably disposed in the channel; and
a support that is selectively positionable to secure the elbow in the workpiece supporting assembly, the body pivotable to a first pivoted position, the body sized so that a first end of the elbow extends from the channel and beyond the body so the first end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process, the body pivotable to a second position and sized so that a second end of the elbow extends from the channel beyond the body so the second end of the elbow is presentable to the workpiece machining implement for performing the machining process.
母案Claim 1：
1. A workpiece machining implement comprising:
a workpiece supporting assembly comprising:
a body member having an internal workpiece channel, the body member having a plurality of body openings communicating with the internal workpiece channel;
means supported by the body member for positioning a workpiece in the internal workpiece channel so that extending workpiece portions of the workpiece extend from selected ones of the body openings;
a plurality of arbors supported by the body member, each arbor having an axis coincident with a datum axis of one of the extending workpiece portions; and
means for rotating the workpiece supporting assembly about the axis of a selected one of the arbors.
本案主要爭議是「再領證」案通過修正新增的專利範圍Claim 14等，在最大範圍Claim 14中相對於母案專利範圍刪除了元件"a plurality of arbors"，如以下元件58與60：
法院與被上訴人（原侵權被告）都提出系爭專利說明書揭露了以兩個心軸作為固定中心的設計：
在再領證案中，專利權人通過修正擴增了專利範圍，讓所主張的工件支撐組件不用心軸（arbor）也可以，但也引來專利不被原母案申請時揭露內容的無效理由。如此，地方法院認為再領證案的專利範圍不被母案說明書支持。
提出最高法院標準"Industrial Chemicals and Antares"：
在CAFC審查時，考量了35 U.S.C. § 251規定，雖法條同意專利通過再領證程序擴增專利範圍，但法院認為，當再領證案提出了新的且經擴增的專利範圍，相關的專利範圍的要求並不能僅被原本說明書、圖式或模型所建議或指出（suggested or indicated）而已，更應該出現（appear）在原本專利中（可能是建構了發明的部分），被原本專利所涵蓋。
"(“To warrant new and broader claims in a reissue, such claims must not be merely suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or models, but it must further appear from the original patent that they constitute parts or portions of the invention, which were intended or sought to be covered or secured by such original patent.”"
如此，法院認為經過擴增專利範圍的再領證案，應不僅於要求"建議或指出（suggest or indicate）"再領證發明而已！而是要「出現（appear）」在被原本說明書涵蓋的"表面"。
"Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “it must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.”"
換句話說，原專利應該要明確而無誤地揭露新的再領證發明。
"the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.”"
即便專利權人主張相關領域一般技術人員可以從說明書中理解所述「心軸」為一個選擇性元件，但法院仍認為「在專利說明書或其圖式中沒有揭露發明中的「心軸」為可選擇的特徵」，即便相關領域一般技術人員可以理解該發明可以不用「心軸」，判決再領證案不符合「Industrial Chemicals and Antares」標準。
my two cents:
再領證案因為提供專利權人可以擴增專利範圍的機會，但可理解地應該要給予更嚴格的要求，本篇雖是針對再領證案，但是仍可學到：(1)說明書反覆強調的特徵不能被忽略；(2)說明書可以加入更多可能性，將來專利範圍可以更多彈性；(3)一般專利審查可以從相關領域一般技術人員可理解的方向調整，但是再領證案可能要用「the same invention」的標準來看。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1765.Opinion.6-17-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/h6rayxy4cigcw8j6ng8nqy4h6b7s2yjy）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/heightened-description-standard.html
Ron
2019年7月30日 星期二
提供證據的義務、前案結合的動機以及旁系禁反言 - Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Co., LTD (Fed. Cir. 2019)
本篇主要談到上訴人提出的先前技術具有結合動機的論述，成為法院參考的有力證據 - Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Co., LTD (Fed. Cir. 2019)
上訴人：POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO
被上訴人：WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
系爭專利：US8,974,072（IPR案：IPR2016-01781, IPR2016-01782）
判決日：July 1, 2019
系爭專利US8,974,072提出一種具有樹幹電連接器的模組化燈樹，大約就是樹幹上有電源插頭的聖誕樹（good idea !），這顆人工樹的結構有樹幹與連線的樹枝，有燈串，樹幹上有連接器與電線，如下圖：
系爭專利經Polygroup提起IPR異議程序後，PTAB最終確認專利權存在，理由是實質證據（先前技術：Miller/US4,020,201、Yang/US7,132,139、Patry/US3,602,531）顯示異議人並未建立結合先前技術的合理理由（"rationale to combine the prior art"）。
其中技術爭點在樹幹上的電連接器的結構。
Miller/US4,020,201
Yang/US7,132,139
Patry/US3,602,531
案件經原異議人Polygroup上訴CAFC，主張PTAB錯誤解釋（misconstrue）系爭專利的「tree portion」，這裡冒出一個議題是："系爭專利的家族專利的訴訟歷史產生的「旁系禁反言」（"collateral estoppel"）"。
"旁系禁反言"涉及系爭專利'072的母案US8,454,186在另一與Polygroup的訴訟-"Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., 759 F. App’x 934, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (No. 2018-1745)"中的答辯意見，Polygroup同時主張系爭專利在先前技術Miller/US4,020,201下為顯而易見。如此，CAFC將重新考量先前技術Miller、解釋專利範圍與非顯而易見性。
本案的主要議題即基於解釋專利範圍的結果判斷是否先前技術具有結合的動機而使得系爭專利為顯而易見？技術爭點在先前技術揭露的人工樹的電插座與系爭專利的結構差異，如公母連接頭、卡扣結構、插座部份是彈性或是固定式等。
（重要 - 先前技術具有結合的動機的證據）Polygroup的意見是，在發明相關領域一般技術人員（"PHOSITA"）具有動機可將Patry的錐形壓扣聯接器使用到Miller/Yang的樹幹電連接器上，其中，可以改善Miller案中樹幹中的連接器，使得能簡化製程，並保留了安裝連接器的彈力，讓連接器可以壓入管狀樹幹中，防止掉落等好處。
（編按，這就是一般顯而易見性有關結合動機的主要討論方向，用力說服審查人員可以同意先前技術具有結合的可能與動機，反之，如果先前技術沒有結合後帶來的好處，或是無法融入在一起，就比較沒有結合的可能）
更者，Polygroup繼續追加論述，先前技術Yang中的卡扣結構，如果通過修正後可以取代已知元件而產生可預期的結果，將使得如系爭專利的技術為顯而易見！
（編按，此為證明參考先前技術的技術方案，若通過簡單修正達成可預期的結果，即「成功的合理期待」，不錯的論述）
不同於PTAB行政法官的決定，CAFC法官被說服了！
CAFC法官認為PTAB誤解了Polygroup的主張，且過窄地認知「顯而易知」，當中仍有不少技術上的論點，有興趣者可參考判決文。
（重要 - 如何看結合的動機）判決文中認為PTAB並未考量其他可接受的動機來源，並聲明所謂「結合的動機」的證據並非是僅從先前技術本身得出，而可以是從相關領域一般技術人員的知識，在相關案例中，從被解決的問題的本質來看，因此，CAFC法官認為以上證據（先前技術）足以證明系爭專利為顯而易見。
"...substantial evidence does not support its factual findings regarding lack of motivation to combine."
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2137.Opinion.7-1-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/d96caozp6usgpuevj22f437heclwukpx）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/submit-supplemental-evidence.html
Ron
上訴人：POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO
被上訴人：WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
系爭專利：US8,974,072（IPR案：IPR2016-01781, IPR2016-01782）
判決日：July 1, 2019
系爭專利US8,974,072提出一種具有樹幹電連接器的模組化燈樹，大約就是樹幹上有電源插頭的聖誕樹（good idea !），這顆人工樹的結構有樹幹與連線的樹枝，有燈串，樹幹上有連接器與電線，如下圖：
系爭專利經Polygroup提起IPR異議程序後，PTAB最終確認專利權存在，理由是實質證據（先前技術：Miller/US4,020,201、Yang/US7,132,139、Patry/US3,602,531）顯示異議人並未建立結合先前技術的合理理由（"rationale to combine the prior art"）。
其中技術爭點在樹幹上的電連接器的結構。
Miller/US4,020,201
Yang/US7,132,139
Patry/US3,602,531
案件經原異議人Polygroup上訴CAFC，主張PTAB錯誤解釋（misconstrue）系爭專利的「tree portion」，這裡冒出一個議題是："系爭專利的家族專利的訴訟歷史產生的「旁系禁反言」（"collateral estoppel"）"。
"旁系禁反言"涉及系爭專利'072的母案US8,454,186在另一與Polygroup的訴訟-"Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., 759 F. App’x 934, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (No. 2018-1745)"中的答辯意見，Polygroup同時主張系爭專利在先前技術Miller/US4,020,201下為顯而易見。如此，CAFC將重新考量先前技術Miller、解釋專利範圍與非顯而易見性。
本案的主要議題即基於解釋專利範圍的結果判斷是否先前技術具有結合的動機而使得系爭專利為顯而易見？技術爭點在先前技術揭露的人工樹的電插座與系爭專利的結構差異，如公母連接頭、卡扣結構、插座部份是彈性或是固定式等。
（重要 - 先前技術具有結合的動機的證據）Polygroup的意見是，在發明相關領域一般技術人員（"PHOSITA"）具有動機可將Patry的錐形壓扣聯接器使用到Miller/Yang的樹幹電連接器上，其中，可以改善Miller案中樹幹中的連接器，使得能簡化製程，並保留了安裝連接器的彈力，讓連接器可以壓入管狀樹幹中，防止掉落等好處。
（編按，這就是一般顯而易見性有關結合動機的主要討論方向，用力說服審查人員可以同意先前技術具有結合的可能與動機，反之，如果先前技術沒有結合後帶來的好處，或是無法融入在一起，就比較沒有結合的可能）
更者，Polygroup繼續追加論述，先前技術Yang中的卡扣結構，如果通過修正後可以取代已知元件而產生可預期的結果，將使得如系爭專利的技術為顯而易見！
（編按，此為證明參考先前技術的技術方案，若通過簡單修正達成可預期的結果，即「成功的合理期待」，不錯的論述）
不同於PTAB行政法官的決定，CAFC法官被說服了！
CAFC法官認為PTAB誤解了Polygroup的主張，且過窄地認知「顯而易知」，當中仍有不少技術上的論點，有興趣者可參考判決文。
（重要 - 如何看結合的動機）判決文中認為PTAB並未考量其他可接受的動機來源，並聲明所謂「結合的動機」的證據並非是僅從先前技術本身得出，而可以是從相關領域一般技術人員的知識，在相關案例中，從被解決的問題的本質來看，因此，CAFC法官認為以上證據（先前技術）足以證明系爭專利為顯而易見。
"...substantial evidence does not support its factual findings regarding lack of motivation to combine."
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2137.Opinion.7-1-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/d96caozp6usgpuevj22f437heclwukpx）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/07/submit-supplemental-evidence.html
Ron
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)