2015年6月30日 星期二

拋棄一件訴願,加速一件訴願(加速審查方案)

USPTO曾經試行「換案」計畫,比如同一申請人可以在未審以前主動拋棄一件專利申請案,就可以換取另一申請案(通常是相近的前後案)的加速審查。("過去"的報導:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/06/project-exchange.htmlhttp://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/12/blog-post_14.html

現行一些美國專利審查的加速方案(有些是過去的報導,若有更新,應以更新後的方案為主,若有差異,也請不吝告知):
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/07/37-cfr-1102.html(37CFR1.102
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_102.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/08/mpep-70802a.html(MPEP708.02
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/708_02_a.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/04/4000us.html(37CFR1.17(c),官方費用:大實體4000美元、小實體2000美元、微實體1000美元)

Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot:
現在又來了,但是是「訴願(appeal)」案的加速審理方案,目的就是能夠消化掉日積月累的積件。

目前每件訴願在技術中心1700(technology center 1700)平均需要24.7個月,在技術中心1600(technology center 1600)則平均需要32.5個月,真的是十分沒有時間效益。以下為各技術中心的平均審查時間:

一旦成功拋棄一件訴願案,同一申請人的另一件訴願將加速審理special status),訴願決定將不會超過4個月(以完成拋棄日開始計算)。

此計畫開始自6/19/2015,試行至6/19/2016,或是直到2000件採用此計畫,以先達到的時間為止。視情況此計畫也可能會延長。

適用此計畫的訴願案的一些注意事項:
  1. 提出時間,如前述一年的時間內
  2. 「電子送件」,這是一種ex parte appeal,並讓它special
  3. 一旦進入special status,不得請求口審(oral hearing),或應拋棄曾經提出的口審請求
  4. 拋棄案或已經提出口審請求的口審請求費以及已經繳交的訴願費用「不得退費」
  5. 進入special status的條件:拋棄另一件同一申請人未審的訴願案或ex parte reexamination(單方再審案)(註記控制號或訴願號)
  6. 欲make it special以及拋棄的案件應為相同申請人,或為至少一共同發明人所擁有
  7. 申請表格:Petition to Make Special—Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot” (Form PTO/SB/438)
  8. 電子表格:http://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms
  9. 拋棄訴願案的程序「沒有官方費用」(不包括代理人費用)

此計畫想要達成的目標:
  1. 自申請人提出此加速申請後,兩個月內決定是否同意此請願(petition)
  2. 一旦同意請願,四個月內作出訴願決定

聯邦紀事:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/15/2015-14754/expedited-patent-appeal-pilot
資料參考:
https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=772
http://allthingspros.blogspot.tw/2015/06/ptab-special-appeal-priority-pilot.html

Ron

2015年6月29日 星期一

“means"有時不是功能手段用語 - Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2015)是一件在專利範圍解釋上爭議的案子,從地方法院裁決,到CAFC en banc推翻地院決定(2014年),認定在上訴階段應該要"重新"解釋專利範圍的原則。這部分可參考:

2014年CAFC聯席法官的決定:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/02/blog-post_24.html
你寫的是"手段功能用語"的專利範圍嗎?

最高法院意見讓CAFC決定轉彎:
不過在此案進行審理中,最高法院在案例"Teva v. Sandoz"中裁決對於針對地方法院判決有關"外部證據"解釋專利範圍的上訴程序中,理應“給予尊重("should be given deference on appeal")”,就是應該要採用。不過其他非關此類的專利範圍解釋仍要重新審理。

針對這個"插入"的最高法院意見,要求正在閱卷審理的本案例"Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics"的CAFC要根據"Teva v. Sandoz"重新做出決定,於是乎有了這次的討論。也就是參考了地方法院的專利範圍解釋重新做出2015版的決定。

Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2015)

案件資訊:
侵權原告:Lighting Ballast Control LLC.
被告:Philips Electronics North America Corp., Uinversal Lighting Technologies, Inc.
系爭專利:US5,436,529

爭議仍在請求範圍中的「voltage source means」是否是手段功能用語"means-plus-function",若是就遭遇35U.S.C.112(f)或(para. 6)的考驗,將檢視說明書內是否有足夠支撐的技術內容。在2014年判決認為"voltage source means"為手段功能用語,因此因為說明書沒有支撐,因此被判相關請求項專利無效。

列舉系爭專利Claim 1:
系爭專利US5,436,529
1. An energy conversion device employing an oscillating resonant converter producing oscillations, having DC input terminals producing a control signal and adapted to power at least one gas discharge lamp having heatable filaments, the device comprising:
voltage source means providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals;
output terminals connected to the filaments of the gas discharge lamp;
control means capable of receiving control signals from the DC input terminals and from the resonant converter, and operable to effectively initiate the oscillations, and to effectively stop the oscillations of the converter; and direct current blocking means coupled to the output terminals and operable to stop flow of the control signal from the DC input terminals, whenever at least one gas discharge lamp is removed from the output terminals or is defective.
系爭專利說明書(指DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS)有關"voltage source"的描述不多,比較清楚的就以下這段,不過,對理解這個詞來說已經足夠,再來就是法律問題,到底以means-plus-function來說,要支援到怎樣的程度?

The ballast constructed as described above (i) will not oscillate and will not draw any power from a supply voltage source whenever lamps are removed or inoperative; (ii) will ignite new lamps after relamping, without turning voltage source OFF and ON; (iii) can be adapted to any lamp type and any power line voltage magnitude; (iv) will be very simple, easily manufacturable and inexpensive.

當年(2014年)CAFC做出與地院不同的意見,這回(2015年)依照最高法院的解釋"應當予以尊重",在地方法院審理時,參考了專家證詞,"voltage source means"就是一般"AC/DC整流器"或是類似這樣的東西,認為有足夠的結構可以"避免以35U.S.C.112(f)"來解釋。專利有效。

這回,CAFC參考了地院的決定,認為地方法院的決定「沒有明顯的錯誤」,認為"voltage source means"在相關領域技術人員來看為可理解,在相關領域已經具有結構/機械特徵,如整流器或相關結構,用以轉換AC到DC。


CAFC的轉彎從這段內容可知,同樣也引述在"patently-o"的討論內容中,有幾個重點:

  1. 地方法院採用外部證據(extrinsic evidence)解釋功能性用語,且與內部證據來理解也沒有牴觸,CAFC這回根據最高法院意見而採用地院決定;
  2. 對於"voltage source means",雖說明書確實沒有描述相關結構,但這對系爭專利相關領域技術人員來說,已經足夠明確;
  3. 地方法院對於事實的認定(factual finding)是根據專家證詞,因為電源為電路的必要元件,每個專家的講法都一致,法院也沒有疑慮;
  4. 「因為地方法院認定請求項範圍已經表達足夠的結構」,因此"voltage source means"並非35U.S.C.112(f)的適用範圍,也就不解釋為"means-plus-function"。



其他"MEANS":
請求項中另有一個「direct current blocking means」,這個元件顯然是用功能界定的,請求項對於此元件的理解可參考上下文:"direct current blocking means coupled to the output terminals and operable to stop flow of the control signal from the DC input terminals",其中已經界定出結構特徵,也不用依照35U.S.C.112(f)規定參考說明書內容,而可以直接從請求項文字理解

請求項中還有一個「control means」,這個元件是重要的侵權審理的爭議,因為被告認為被告侵權物的控制電路讓裝置在關閉時,仍可以讓其中的安定器(ballast)取得電力,不同於系爭專利"control means"的功能,但原告則主張此用語有其均等範圍(適用35U.S.C.112(f)),其中並未排除被告侵權物的這項功能,且證明系爭專利控制手段可以涵蓋被告物的功能。

地方法院引用專家證詞,認為被告侵權物的結構均等系爭專利"control means",CAFC判定如地方法院的決定,侵權成立。


後語:
  1. 當然,這件案例仍產生了一些疑慮或是疑問,包括加強了功能性用語的使用的模糊程度。
  2. 本案應該並非通例,除非功能用語都像本案"電源手段"如此明確(以及如此幸運)。
  3. 本案引入「發明相關領域技術人員」作為解釋手段功能用語的事實認定,有點留了不當的後路,法院將來勢必面對一堆這類問題(但對專利權人來說是好事)。
  4. 撰寫means-plus-function,真是心之所至,確實會忽略說明書的詳細描述,因為「自以為是相關技術人員」,其實,真正解釋專利範圍的人是法官,還好本案是採用「專家證詞」。
  5. 這件的轉變,相對於過去幾件「儀文」主義的法院判決,已經"文明"許多,也比較貼近專利的初衷,而不會因為一些"文字上"的失誤而影響權利。
  6. 審理期間若有對應的最高法院(或其他法院意見)意見,都會影響當下的判決,本案甚至由最高法院發出(同意請願、撤回先前決定,以及重審)的G-V-R命令。

資訊參考:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/06/voltage-function.html

判決原文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1014.Opinion.6-18-2015.1.PDF
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1014.Opinion.6-18-2015.1.PDF
(link updated on Dec. 25, 2015)

Ron

2015年6月26日 星期五

法院教我們如何解釋專利範圍(E-WATCH INC. v. APPLE, INC.案例討論)

本篇討論訴訟中的CLAIM CONSTRUCTION,不涉及訴訟結果。

這份文件源自「E-WATCH INC. v. APPLE, INC.」的侵權訴訟,在訴訟審理之前,先進行申請專利範圍解釋(claim construction),全文69頁,對權利範圍中的用語逐一進行解釋。
https://app.box.com/s/46kjg03k5b6muh9jmomb8zil75jo84uy

案件資訊:
系爭專利:US7,365,871, US7,643,168
目前專利權人(侵權原告):E-WATCH, INC.
侵權被告:Apple, Inc.

e-Watch是一個保全系統商,保全功能從過去封閉系統走出來,應用在手機上,我們也常見用在手機上的保全功能,比如遠端影像監控。

系爭專利(US7,365,871)揭露一種透過數位傳輸系統擷取、轉換與傳輸數位影像的技術,從此案的法律資訊看到一些有趣的事情,hTC, Apple, LG, Samsung都對此案提出IPR(inter partes review),但都尚未有任何決定,顯然專利權人應該都對各大手機廠商提出專利訴訟,google了一下,有些資訊可見:http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=9138日後會找一兩件來理解

我覺得,從優先權可以溯及1998年來看,技術並非一定是指稱手機(特別是智慧型手機),卻有很豐富的技術揭露,也可以說是很瑣碎,也算是很有技巧地讓被告無奈地面對這種專利,迫使對手要想盡辦法提出無效舉發,卻也可能不容易找到符合新穎性的引證文獻。

Claim 1直指一個手機,實現影像處理系統,可以執行語音訊號傳輸、照片擷取與傳輸,雖然範圍看來不廣,包含了不少很瑣碎的元件,比如殼體、顯示器、處理器、記憶體、使用者介面、電話系統,甚至是鍵盤...,卻是包含了常見手機的基本功能,難怪各手機廠商會跳腳。

就專利範圍來看,初看並沒有顯著的技術特徵,特徵就是「整合」,在一個行動裝置殼體內整合了軟硬體元件,如照相機、顯示器、處理器、記憶體、使用者介面、電話系統、輸入按鍵、無線通訊與電源。

1. A handheld self-contained cellular telephone and integrated image processing system for both sending and receiving telephonic audio signals and for capturing a visual image and transmitting it to a compatible remote receiving station of a wireless telephone network, the system comprising:
a manually portable housing;
an integral image capture device comprising an electronic camera contained within the portable housing;
a display for displaying an image framed by the camera, the display being supported by the housing, the display and the electronic camera being commonly movable in the housing when the housing is moved by hand;
a processor in the housing for generating an image data signal representing the image framed by the camera;
a memory associated with the processor for receiving and storing the digitized framed image, accessible for selectively displaying in the display window and accessible for selectively transmitting over the wireless telephone network the digitized framed image;
a user interface for enabling a user to select the image data signal for viewing and transmission;
a telephonic system in the housing for sending and receiving digitized audio signals and for sending the image data signal;
alphanumeric input keys in the housing for permitting manually input digitized alphanumeric signals to be input to the processor, the telephonic system further used for sending the digitized alphanumeric signals;
a wireless communications device adapted for transmitting any of the digitized signals to the compatible remote receiving station; and
a power supply for powering the system.

系爭專利(US7,643,168)是上述871案的延續案(CA),內容一致,也是遭到hTC, Apple, LG與Samsung提出IPR的挑戰,雖揭露之初不見得是針對現在的手機,卻因為智慧型手機包山包海的功能而被讀入(read on),請求項範圍也是頗為細節,卻多半也都是一般手機的必要技術。
1. Apparatus comprising:
a portable housing, the portable housing being wireless;
an image collection device supported by the portable housing, the image collection device being operable to provide visual image data of a field of view;
a display supported by the portable housing, the display being operable to display for viewing by a user a perceptible visual image, the perceptible visual image being generated from the visual image data;
memory supported by the portable housing, the memory being suitable to receive visual image data in digital format, the memory being suitable to retain the visual image data in digital format,
an input device supported by the portable housing, the input device being operable by the user;
operation of the input device by the user enabling the memory to retain the visual image data in digital format, the memory being suitable to provide retained visual image data in digital format;
media supported by the portable housing, the media being suitable to embody at least one compression algorithm;
at least one processing platform supported by the portable housing, the at least one processing platform being operable to execute the at least one compression algorithm, the at least one processing platform being provided the retained visual image data in digital format, execution of the at least one compression algorithm providing compressed visual image data; and
a mobile phone supported by the portable housing, the mobile phone being operable to send to a remote recipient a wireless transmission, the wireless transmission conveying the compressed digital image data; and
movement by the user of the portable housing commonly moving the image collection device,
movement by the user of the portable housing commonly moving the display.
E-WATCH, INC. v. APPLE, INC.的訴訟審理中,不過這裡討論地方法院在解釋專利範圍時提出的備忘錄,解釋專利範圍也是審理的先前步驟,尤其是以上描述的系爭專利,因為世代轉換,是否能夠直接read on到這幾年突飛猛進的智慧行動裝置的技術?都會在解釋專利範圍時一窺究竟。

以下列舉法院解釋專利範圍時的方式,這雖可能不是多厲害的事,卻也值得參考,避免用自己過多的自以為是的態度。

解釋專利範圍的原則是:先查看內部證據(intrinsic evidence),包括說明書內容、審查歷史;法院也參考相關領域技術人員在發明當下的技術水平來理解專利範圍;而請求項範圍中的語言也提供判斷專利範圍的依據;而專利獨立項與附屬項的差異也表示獨立項並未包括附屬項的範圍。雖然外部證據(extrinsic evidence)也有用,如字典、專家證詞(expert testimony),但是不比內部證據重要,特別是每個專利權人/發明人都可自己定義請求項用語。


(附屬請求項的意義可參考本部落格先前文章)
PTAB對首件IPR的最終決定(其中討論「請求項差異化原則(Doctrine of Claim Differentiation)」頗有參考價值):http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/02/ptabiprabout-claims.html

辭彙編撰者(LEXICOGRAPHER)

本部落格"112"標籤

解釋專利範圍自然也會觸碰明確性的問題,也就是如同許多討論35U.S.C.112(a)(b)(f)審查原則的案例,可見本部落格"112"標籤(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/search/label/112),包括討論用語是否明確、是否受到說明書支撐、是否有足夠的揭露內容、是否符合手段功能用語的撰寫規定等。

以下摘要列舉一些我覺得重要的專利範圍解釋,這些字字斟酌的內容,可以引以為鑒:
*(訴訟雙方同意的解釋)

*(訴訟雙方對"by the user"的描述有爭議,其中"由使用者"按鍵輸入的動作就會影響是否侵權的判斷:"an input device supported by the portable housing, the input device being operable by the user;",至少法院認為這個放在裝置(apparatus)的動作(method)已經造成不明確,而且還是人為動作!)

*(造成不明確爭議的用語,法院初判"setup"一詞沒有不明確的問題,並賦予一般意義)

*(法院也會給予自己的解釋,對於"the portable housing being wireless",法院給予比較完整的解釋,把這句過於精簡的用語解釋為"the portable housing contains a component that provides wireless transmission")

*(法院認為"adapted for transmitting"沒有不明確,理由是從說明書相關的描述來看,這句話並沒有造成混淆)

*(關於"processor",雖是一般認知的處理器,但是如果以手段功能用語來看,就看它在系爭專利中做了哪些事!雖然每個裝置都會有處理器,但是如果做的事情不同,就可能沒有讀入專利範圍)
就這個"processor",專利權人自然希望這個元件不是用功能來界定,主張"means",常關注美國專利訴訟的人就知道,法院判斷是否為功能手段用語不會僅根據是否有"means"這個字眼來看。
如此,顯然不利於專利權人。不過,法院也非如此八股,在系爭專利中所界定的"processor"為連接照相機而處理數位影像的處理器,並非涉及特定用途,且並未採用"means",也觸發可反駁推定(rebuttable presumption),法院就看這個推定是否強烈("strong"),如此就要求被告有舉證義務,證明是否"processor"並未引用足夠明確的結構特徵,或是功能手段。經判斷,認為被告並未成功舉證,因此判斷"processor"明確,且以一般意義來解釋。

被告提出的論點之一:

法院意見:
同意原告,認為說明書的描述已經有足夠有關"processor"的描述,認為"processor"就以一般意義來解釋:

*(法院自為解釋,認為"manually portable housing", "portable housing"應解釋為"housing capable of being held by hand",以及認為"handheld"應解釋為"capable of being held by hand"。認為原告自己將這些用語模糊了!)

*(有些用語雖然很像,但在不同位置就會有不同意義)
這裡討論到"supported, supporting, supports"的解釋,最後給予一般意義。


*(雖然這些用語有時我也會有點困擾,比如image signals就是image data,或是要寫成image data signals,但是就法院的角度,只要可以一般方式理解,就是明確的用語)


*(法院以內部證據來解釋)
每個專利工程師可能都有自己的習慣。在很多情況下,撰寫專利說明書的人可能會希望"通篇內容對於某個元件的用語應該要一致,或是要求一模一樣",這樣自然不會有爭議,但是一旦經過專利範圍解釋,可能連別種解釋空間都犧牲了;因此,常常我會"用不同方式或用語講同一個元件",讓將來解釋專利時彈性較大,或是審查答辯時還有轉圜的空間,但缺點是會被講成不明確或是被挑毛病,這要看發明人/客戶是否可以"明理地"接受)

此點列舉一個技術的兩種描述"image formed by the camera"與"generating a digitized framed image",被告解釋為,一是由照相機所拍攝的影像,另一為由照相機接收訊號而數位化的影像。當然,這些都是照相機(與相關軟硬體)的工作,這就看用在哪裡?不能因為照相機在不同階段的動作就會產生不同的侵權判斷。

*(法院給予一般技術人員的解釋)

這裡討論到"電話系統telephone network",這對這件訴訟很重要,因為是否電話就如被告所指應該為PSTN的一般電話網路,或是可以涵蓋到現在智慧型手機所處的行動通訊網路。

法院的分析如下,說明書提到的"telephone network",不同意被告所稱為PSTN,法院認為說明書與答辯歷史等內部證據並未限制telephone network為PSTN(public circuit switched telephone network),也就是認為被告不當限制此用語的廣度。一旦法院認為此用語沒有模糊,顯然原告可以較寬的方式解釋telephone network。

*(法院認為協定"protocol"這個字是管理傳輸的一系列規則)
法院認為,"transmission protocol"應解釋為"set of conventions or rules governing transmission"。

(以上並未全盤報導,如有興趣,可以自行理解,而且也是十分值得)

小結:
雖然這裡並未追蹤訴訟進度,但是至少就專利範圍解釋來看,法院已經指出多處造成不明確的問題,主要的理由除了用語定義不明確外,更是認為專利範圍"混合了裝置與方法",有硬體,又有軟體或人為動作,這點已經讓系爭專利處於不利的位置!

Ron

2015年6月24日 星期三

說明書揭露的程度 - Ariad v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2010)

專利說明書揭露的程度會影響可專利性,案例討論 - Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company (Fed. Cir. 2010)

此案為2010年CAFC判決,涉及美國專利說明書揭露程度(35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (a))影響發明的可專利性的決定,CAFC對於說明書揭露程度的態度是:說明書揭露與可實施性(enablement)不同,說明書揭露不足將導致專利無效,不是專利可實施就可以,而是有更高的揭露標準。

"We now reaffirm that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement, and we again reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL and hold the asserted claims of the ’516 patent invalid for failure to meet the statutory written description requirement."

35 U.S.C. 112 SPECIFICATION. (post-AIA)
(a) IN GENERAL.--The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention .

案件資訊:
系爭專利:US6,410,516
專利權人:President & Fellows Of Harvard College, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, Whitehead Instittue For Biomedical Research
侵權被告:Eli Lilly and Company
本案緣起

系爭專利(申請號:08/464364,優先權溯及1986年的申請案06/817441)關於一種基因轉錄調控的技術(Nuclear factors associated with transcriptional regulation ),其中表示基因的「轉錄因子NF-κB」中的核因子(nuclear factor)可以透過改進的蛋白質-DNA的化驗方法識別與分離出來(by improved assay for protein-DNA binding. ),用以增強免疫球蛋白基因。

系爭專利發明人發現「轉錄因子NF-κB」存在於細胞中,成為無活性複合物與蛋白抑製劑,但可透過細胞外刺激而被活化,因此被釋放出來。一旦「轉錄因子NF-κB」被活化而釋放出來,將游走細胞核,因此激化具有此「轉錄因子NF-κB」的基因轉錄,藉此可以抵禦細胞外的攻擊不過,當這類刺激過量,對人類有害,於是發明人透過人為干擾的方式影響「轉錄因子NF-κB」活性,降低有害的病症。這就是系爭專利的技術要點。

專利權人Ariad於2002年對Lilly提出侵權訴訟,系爭申請專利範圍:Claims 80, 95, 144, 145,已下列舉Claim 80,此項為claims 7, 8的附屬項。

80. [A method for modifying effects of external influences on a eukaryotic cell, which external influences induce NF-κB-mediated intracellular signaling, the method comprising altering NF-κB activity in the cells such that NF-κB-mediated effects of external influences are modified, wherein NF-κB activity in the cell is reduced] wherein reducing NF-κB activity comprises reducing binding of NF-κB to NF-κB recognition sites on genes which are transcriptionally regulated by NF-κB.

95. [A method for reducing, in eukaryotic cells, the level of expression of genes which are activated by extracellular influences which induce NF-κB-mediated intracellular signaling, the method comprising reducing NF-κB activity in the cells such that expression of said genes is reduced], carried out on human cells.

144. [A method for reducing bacterial lipopolysaccharide-induced expression of cytokines in mammalian cells, which method comprises reducing NF-κB activity in the cells so as to reduce bacterial lipopolysaccharide-induced expression of said cytokines in the cells] wherein reducing NF-κB activity comprises reducing binding of NF-κB to NF-κB recognition sites on genes which are transcriptionally regulated by NF-κB.

145. [A method for reducing bacterial lipopolysaccharide-induced expression of cytokines in mammalian cells, which method comprises reducing NF-κB activity in the cells so as to reduce bacterial lipopolysaccharide-induced expression of said cytokines in the cells], carried out on human cells.

地方法院階段:2006年4月作出侵權成立,專利有效(專利並未缺乏可實施性、揭露內容)等的決定,同時否決被告Lilly的JMOL的motion。於是Lilly上訴CAFC。

CAFC階段:
經上訴人Lilly提出專利因為不符35U.S.C.112(a)的無效主張,CAFC法官初判否決地院陪審團的決定,認為各項系爭請求項因為說明書不符揭露要求而判定無效,專利權人Ariad提出聯席法官重審的請願,經同意後,案件將討論以下兩個問題(是否112(a)規定表示說明書揭露要求不同於可實施性的要求?如果答案是"不同",那所謂的揭露書要求為何?):

(1) Whether 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 1, contains a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement?
(2) If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of that requirement?

聯席法官再審結果:17位表示支持Lilly意見;1位支持原告Ariad;其餘7位沒有意見。

35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 1文字其實很清楚,不過討論起來卻是各說各話,我們一般認為專利說明書揭露程度就是讓相關領域的技術人員可以據以實施就好,揭露到讓人理解發明為何,以及如何達成。

這部分可參考中華民國審查基準第二篇第一章中「1.3說明書的記載原則」規定:可據以實現要件

"說明書作為技術文件,應明確且充分揭露申請專利之發明,使公眾能利用該發明,而申請人能據以主張該發明。因此,說明書形式上應敘明發明名稱、技術領域、先前技術、發明內容、圖式簡單說明、實施方式及符號說明等;其內容應明確且充分揭露申請專利之發明,使該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者能瞭解該發明的內容,並可據以實現,簡稱可據以實現要件。說明書之記載是否已明確且充分揭露,須在說明書、申請專利範圍及圖式三者整體之基礎上,參酌申請時之通常知識予以審究。審查時,若說明書之記載未明確或未充分揭露申請專利之發明,
無法使該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者瞭解其內容並可據以實現者,應以違反專利法第26 條第1 項為理由,通知申請人申復或修正。
說明書應明確且充分揭露,指說明書之記載必須使該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者能瞭解申請專利之發明的內容,而以其是否可據以實現為判斷的標準,若達到可據以實現之程度,即謂說明書明確且充分揭露申請專利之發明。"

「可據以實施要件」自然為專利權人Ariad的主張:

被告Lilly則提出過去歷史,認為專利說明書的揭露要求包括:揭露內容,以及讓相關技術人員可以實施的要求,也就是說明書揭露與據以實施是兩個分別的要件:


對此爭議,CAFC法官站在Lilly這邊:

CAFC法官引用多件過去美國最高法院的案例,藉以支持自己的看法,有關據以實施與說明書揭露程度等意見,比如:
Schriber-Schroth
[1] to require the patentee to describe his invention so that others may construct and use it after the expiration of the patent and [2] to inform the public during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be known which features may be safely used or manufactured without a license and which may not.

Gill v. Wells
(1) That the government may know what they have granted and what will become public property when the term of the monopoly expires. (2.) That licensed persons desiring to practice the invention may know,during the term, how to make, construct, and use the invention. (3.) That other inventors may know what part of the field of invention is unoccupied.

Festo
[T]he patent application must describe, enable, and set forth the best mode of carrying out the invention. These latter requirements must be satisfied before issuance of the patent, for exclusive patent rights are given in exchange for disclosing the invention to the public. What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue. The patent also should not issue if the other requirements of § 112 are not satisfied . . . .

關於本案例中有關干擾「轉錄因子NF-κB」活性的技術,CAFC認為所謂「足夠的說明書」應要求有詳細的定義,如結構、方程式、化學式、物理特性或其他內容,使得足以區隔其他材料的基因的內容:

當然,以上討論主要是圍繞在化學/生技相關技術領域,這也是法院的想法,法官承認在某些技術領域「發明的描述("describing an invention")」與「是否可以據以實施("enabling one to make and use it")」差異不大;不過,不總是這樣!但判斷原則是,如果請求項界定了一些功能、功效,說明書足夠支持的標準就相對較高


結論:
根據以上討論,以及在說明書揭露程度的共識下,認為系爭專利請求項範圍因為沒有足夠的揭露內容而無效。

後語:
本案例提供各位撰寫專利說明書的工程師參考,原則就是說明書應揭露到「讓人足以理解而據以實施」,更進一步,還有補入細節(結構、方程式、物理或化學特性),讓人可以區隔出該發明與其他的差異。

判決原文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1248.pdf
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/cea3wtwa63h0fjwxn77v6vfdwzxogr4f

案件推薦:James Long

Ron




2015年6月23日 星期二

功能性用語認定以及說明書寫作標準的討論 - Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

當審查委員在請求項範圍中判斷某個功能模組,如果不是電路、軟體步驟特徵,應該就會認定該元件是一種功能手段,解釋此類功能手段用語的範圍時,使用"module", "element", "mechanism", "device"等用語要小心,將以35U.S.C.112(f)(第6段)作為審查標準,參考說明書揭示內容,查看是否有足夠支持的揭露內容。這點有時會產生答辯的困擾

這6/16/2015出爐重要判決可能會影響我們寫作的標準,也就是(參考諸多先前案例,也可參考本部落格過去文章)再一次確認:"means"用語並非是"means-plus-function"專利範圍解釋的必要特徵,雖仍是重要判斷條件,但會以相關技術人員(包括審查人員)的標準來判斷是否落於35U.S.C.112(f)的定義,當以35U.S.C.112(f)的標準解釋專利範圍,說明書將"嚴格"要求揭露執行該功能對應的結構、材料或動作

35 U.S.C. 112(f) SPECIFICATION
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.--An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structurematerial, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

案例討論:Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

案件資訊:
系爭專利:US6,155,840
專利權人(原告、上訴人):At Home Corporation(經信託Richard A, Williamson)
侵權被告:Citrix Online, LLC, Microsoft, Adobe等
緣起,專利權人挾專利提出侵權告訴(2011年),在地方法院裁決中,認為侵權不成立,以及部分專利權無效。經專利權人上訴後,CAFC法官認為,地方法院錯誤解釋專利範圍,因此撤銷地院不侵權的裁決(針對claims 1-7, 17-24);但同意其中claims 8-12無效的判決("we affirm the judgment of invalidity of claims 8–12 of the ’840 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2.")(2015年)。(updated on Nov. 9, 2015)

案例討論:

系爭專利揭露一種分散式教學系統,也就是一種虛擬教室的技術,此系統包括有三個主要元件:執行教學者端的電腦、學員端的電腦,以及處理分散式教學的伺服器((1) a presenter computer, (2) audience member computers, 與(3)a distributed learning server)。


Claim 1揭示執行分散式教學的方法,專利元件以步驟表示:
1. A method of conducting distributed learning among a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network, the method comprising the steps of:
providing instructions to a first computer system coupled to the network for:
creating a graphical display representative of a classroom;
creating a graphical display illustrating controls for selecting first and second data streams;
creating a first window for displaying the first selected data stream; and
creating a second window for displaying the second selected data stream, wherein
the first and second windows are displayed simultaneously; and
providing instructions to a second computer system coupled to the network for:
creating a graphical display representative of the classroom;
creating a third window for displaying the first selected data stream; and
creating a fourth window for displaying the second selected data stream, wherein
the third and fourth windows are displayed simultaneously.

Claim 8界定執行分散式教學的系統,描述上會牽扯上「功能性用語」:
8. A system for conducting distributed learning among a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network, the system comprising:
a presenter computer system of the plurality of computer systems coupled to the network and comprising:
a content selection control for defining at least one remote streaming data source and for selecting one of the remote streaming data sources for viewing; and
a presenter streaming data viewer for displaying data produced by the selected remote streaming data source;
an audience member computer system of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system via the network, the audience member computer system comprising:
an audience member streaming data viewer for displaying the data produced by the selected remote streaming data source; and
a distributed learning server remote from the presenter and audience member computer systems of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system and the audience member computer system via the network and comprising:
a streaming data module for providing the streaming data from the remote streaming data source selected with the content selection control to the presenter and audience member computer systems; and
a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module.

Claim 17揭示控制教學者電腦系統與學員端電腦系統的分散式教學伺服器,其中描述伺服器的元件:
17. A distributed learning server for controlling a presenter computer system and an audience member computer system coupled to the distributed learning server via a network, the distributed learning server comprising:
a module for providing a first graphical display on the presenter computer system, the first graphical display comprising:
a first presenter content selection control for selecting a first source of streaming content representative of graphical information;
a first presenter content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the first selected source;
a second presenter content selection control for selecting a second source of streaming content representative of graphical information; and
a second presenter content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the second selected source, wherein the first and second presenter content display regions are adapted to display simultaneously; and
a classroom region for representing the audience member computer system coupled to the distributed learning server; and
a module for providing a second graphical display on the audience member computer system, the second graphical display comprising:
a first audience member content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the first source selected by the content selection control; and
a second audience member content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the second source selected by the content selection control, wherein the first and second audience member content display regions are adapted to display simultaneously.

地方法院解釋專利範圍時,有兩個裁決:
認為claims 1, 17中「graphic display("graphical display representative of a classroom and first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom region")」應該要有圖式描述虛擬的空間,以此表示教學者、學員的位置。據此,認為被告並無侵權。

認為claim 8中的「distributed learning control module」是符合35U.S.C.112(f)所定義的手段功能用語,因此判斷說明書並未揭露執行此功能的演算法,於是認為該項不明確,專利無效

CAFC階段
解釋專利範圍:
對於Williamson的上訴與反對意見,CAFC法官同意Williamson,認為地院不當解釋專利範圍,沒有必要需要圖式來描述分散式教學系統的虛擬空間,對此,CAFC法官發回地院重審侵權議題。

請求項功能手段用語討論:
對於功能性用語的要求,也就是本次討論重點,所謂「分散式學習控制模組("distributed learning control module")」是否為功能性用語?

"...a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module."

首先,認為請求項範圍中使用「means」用語,是否就是以35U.S.C.112(f)的標準來審查的「功能手段用語」,CAFC法官顯然有自己的看法,認為不會因為加上了「means」就自動是手段功能用語,反之,也不會因為沒有「means」這個字眼而認為不是功能手段用語
判斷時,因為手段功能用語應用在結構特徵中,應以發明相關領域技術人員的理解判斷是否足夠明確定義相關結構(是否有足夠明確的結構而定),因此會看實際情況而定。

"The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583."


在上訴CAFC階段,Williamson(原告)主張因為請求項範圍(指claim 8)並未使用"means",因此並非適用35U.S.C.112(f) or para. 6,認為地院錯誤將焦點放在"module"這個字,而未整體考量!

隨著被告"們"(Appellees)對於"distributed learning control module"在電腦技術中缺少可理解的結構意義的意見,CAFC"客觀地"表示,他們看的不僅是"distributed learning control module",而是整句話的意義,認為其中包括了三種功能:(1) receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems; (2) relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system; and (3) coordinating the operation of the streaming data module.

如此,綜觀整個說明書內容,CAFC法官對於"module"的解釋,認為並無界定出任何結構特徵,更未於說明書或審查歷史中得到任何"對應的(corresponding structure)"結構限制,也非為一般目的電腦所實現的功能。

對此,原告主張原說明書圖4, 5已經揭露"對應的"描述以及方法,但對此,法官認為這些圖式都沒有描述演算與對應的功能,僅是軟體介面的描述。

判決書特別提到幾個請求項常見用語,都是有可能被判定該段落為手段功能用語的撰寫方式,如"module"一般用來描述執行特定功能的軟體或硬體的用語,其他還有"mechanism", "element", "device"等。

結論:
CAFC認為840案claims 8-16因為其中means-plus-function用語"distributed learning control module"缺乏對應的結構(說明書)而導致不明確,不符35U.S.C.112(f)揭露規定,該組範圍無效。

判決原文:
ORDER:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1130.Order.6-11-2015.1.PDF (updated on Nov. 9, 2015)

OPINION:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1130.Opinion.6-11-2015.1.PDF(updated on Nov. 9, 2015)
(判決文備份:https://app.box.com/s/8h4auiir2b3mdvbknu355g4xjrqjdna2

資訊參考:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/06/williamson-citrix-opinion.html

Ron

一把25萬的椅子:43椅 - 產品與專利

台灣文創與工藝的驕傲:43椅


專利圖式:

從許多新聞可知,台灣工藝品牌Yii(易)跨國開發的「43椅」為工藝與產業的藝術產品,特別是竹藝大師陳高明與德國設計大師Konstantin Grcic的合作,算是時尚與傳統工藝的結合,得到很多國際注意。

先看看「Konstantin Grcic」的設計,多半都是椅子的主題(資料來源:OHIM):

「43椅」資訊(來源:國立臺灣工藝研究發展中心):
工藝師:陳高明
設計師:Konstantin Grcic
材質:孟宗竹
尺寸 (公分):面寬53 x 側深55 x 高度77
特色:每條竹片所彎之曲度與角度皆不同
手工製作:
製作過程運用3D軟體模擬彈性與重量。
突破以往所使用鋼材、鐵材、塑材等材料。
充分運用台灣孟宗竹具強力韌性與彈性之特色。
建議售價:5,000歐元

從網路上搜尋得到的「43懸臂椅產製授權合約(甲方:國立臺灣工藝研究發展中心)」,可以知道其專利佈局,以及以智慧財產權的佈局與授權方案:

I405549(中華民國發明)
M364462(中華民國新型)
992363(中華人民共和國新型)
3152056(日本新型)
US8,147,002(美國發明專利)

專利介紹:
I405549(中華民國發明)

(本案專利前案僅遭遇自己的新型專利,經刪除重複專利部分而獲准)
請求項1:
1.一種竹片椅之製造方法,係包括:
取料抽片,將原始竹材依尺寸需求裁切為複數片毛料;
乾燥處理,將該毛料放入一炭化設備以炭化方式進行乾燥處理;
初步校直,將乾燥後的毛料以火烤方式校正曲度;
定規格,將初步校直後的毛料經刨削再校直後確定為實際製造所需要的尺寸規格;
初次烤彎,將部份定規格後的毛料分別用作複數組前片與後片,並將各組前片與後片依照所需要的角度分別進行三道烤彎程序,以形成具椅背段、座位段、椅腳段以及底座段之平滑流線造型;
初次組合,將各組經初次烤彎後的前片與後片組合固定形成各組構成單元;烘烤變形,將各組構成單元之前片與後片於椅背段、座位段以及椅腳段分別進行烘烤變形程序,使其朝左側或右側彎折;
預排成型,將各組經烘烤變形後的構成單元預先相互並列設置以形成竹片椅之初步型態;
二次烤彎,將部份定規格後的毛料烤彎形成複數個固定橫板,該固定橫板係依照預排成型後各組構成單元之前片與後片的椅背段與座位段所夾角度、座位段與椅腳段所夾角度以及椅背段、座位段與椅腳段朝左側或右側彎折的角度烤彎成型;
三次烤彎,將部份定規格後的毛料烤彎形成複數個補強單元,該補強單元係依照預排成型後各組構成單元之後片椅腳段的彎曲程度烤彎成型;以及
二次組合,將該補強單元固定於該構成單元之後片的一側,再將各組構成單元假固定後,與各固定橫板組合以形成一竹片椅。 

M364462(中華民國新型)(這部分範圍原本也引述在發明專利範圍中,不過因為重複專利被刪除,申請人保留新型專利)
請求項1:
1.一種座椅,係包括有:
複數組構成單元,係相互並列設置,其分別包括:
一前片,具有一椅背段、一連結於該椅背段之座位段、一連結於該座位段之椅腳段以及一連結於該椅腳段之底座段;以及
一後片,係為對應該前片構造之型態而具有椅背段、座位段、椅腳段以及底座段,其結合於該前片之後側以增加支撐强度;
複數個補强單元,係設置於該構成單元之後片的一側;以及
複數個固定橫板,係分別固定於該後片之椅背段後側、前片之座位段下側、前片之椅腳段後側、後片之椅腳段前側以及前片之底座段下側;
其中,該複數組並列設置的構成單元之後片椅腳段與前片椅腳段下端的間距係由二側往中央漸增以提升承載重量的分力效果。

3152056(日本新型)
(請求項範圍與台案新型一致)

US8,147,002(美國發明專利)
(本案審查過程經限制選擇要求後保留裝置範圍而獲准,並未見到分割案)
就以下請求項1所載竹椅的範圍來看,比其他國家的新型專利範圍更窄,也是申請時初稿的範圍,顯然代理人十分盡責地在美國案規劃不同的專利範圍,不過範圍描述很細節,大約就是直指「一把複雜的椅子」的結構。

Claim 1:
1. A bamboo chair being sturdy, symmetrical and fashionable, having a center, a front, a rear and two sides and comprising;
multiple bamboo slats being fundamental building blocks of the bamboo chair and comprising;
multiple front slats being mounted adjacent to each other and having an upper end and a lower end, and each front slat being curved and having;
a front surface;
a rear surface;
a backrest segment being formed at the upper end of the front slat and has an upper end and a lower end;
a seat segment extending from the lower end of the backrest segment, having a front end and a rear end and being at an angle to the backrest segment;
a front leg segment extending from the front end of the seat segment, protruding downward and having an upper end and a lower end; and
a base segment extending from the front leg segment, bending parallel to a surface on which the bamboo chair sits and having a front end and a rear end;
multiple rear slats being mounted respectively on the rear surfaces of the front slats, and each rear slat being curved and having
an upper end;
a lower end;
a front surface;
a rear surface;
a backrest segment being formed at the upper end of the rear slat, being connected to the rear surface of the front slat on the corresponding backrest segment and having an upper end and a lower end;
a seat segment being shorter than the seat segment of the front slat, extending from the lower end of the backrest segment of the rear slat, connecting to the rear surface of the front slat on the corresponding seat segment of the front slat, having a front end and a rear end and being at an angle to the backrest segment;
a rear leg segment extending from the front end of the seat segment, bending downward, being separated from the front leg segment of the front slat and having an upper end and a lower end;
a base segment extending from the lower end of the rear leg segment, bending to correspond to the rear end of the base segment of the corresponding front slat and connecting to the base segment of the corresponding front slat; and
multiple transverse support slats being mounted on and holding the front slats and rear slats securely in position adjacent to the corresponding front slats and rear slats;
a backrest being formed by the adjacent backrest segments respectively of the front and rear slats held in place by a transverse support slat at upper ends of the front and rear slats;
a seat being formed by the adjacent seat segments held in place by a transverse support slat mounted under the seat;
two legs comprising;
a front leg being formed by the adjacent front leg segments;
a rear leg being formed by the adjacent rear leg segments; and
a base being formed by the adjacent base segments held in place by at least two transverse support slats and sitting stably on any flat surface.

後語(評論是尊重的方式之一,這裡只是我的意見):
我想,這類以工藝為主的技術要取得專利實在不容易,就工藝的專利保護來看,我覺得設計專利比發明專利重要,從佈局來看,可能有幾個想法(抱歉,這是我的後見之明)
  • 發明專利或可搭配設計專利( 部分設計為佳),至少視覺上的印象對「43椅」是重要的,因為外觀容易模仿,製程或是其中結構設計卻相對不容易模仿。這個發明專利圖式都圍繞在「43椅」,不過就專利範圍來看,或許無法防堵有人心對於"外觀"的仿冒或者
  • 製程可以「營業秘密」保護;或說
  • 這些製程如果公開給產業使用,反而可以促進成長,不一定要取得製程專利,設計(或是部分設計)才是精神所在;或者
  • 「透過製程授權」,還是可以保護工藝大師的「精神」,一旦有人想要這個技術,確實可以透過專利授權達成;
  • 另外,我這個門外漢認為,以方法專利的標準來看,這些動作(手工)很難取得國外專利,因為都可說每個步驟都是「人為心智活動」,這不同於「半導體或是自動組裝」的製程,這就是工藝品或美術品"不容易"取得方法專利的主要理由之一。比如請求項1的步驟有:「取料抽片」、「乾燥處理」、「初步校直」、「定規格」、「三道烤彎程序」、「初次組合」、「預排成型」、「二次烤彎」、「三次烤彎」以及「二次組合」,嚴格來看,「手工製作」就是取得發明專利障礙。
  • 當然,這類工藝設計的保護還是有「著作權」與「營業秘密」的門檻,所謂「專利權」就是"看得見"的權利,仍有其佈局的必要性。

Ron