2017年9月30日 星期六

美國與歐洲分割案的修正討論

筆記

「分割申請案(divisional application)」在多數國家的意義是從原母案中"切割"出尚未主張權利的技術,成為另一申請案的「申請專利範圍」的專利樣態,一旦獲准,分割案專利與母案一起"到期",分割案可獨立主張專利權。

編註:美國專利分割案為針對「限制選擇」後的申請樣態,將未選擇(non-elected)的申請專利範圍提出一延續案(DIV與CA寫作與申請規定是一致的),這時程序上稱為分割申請案(Divisional)。這樣看來,美國的延續申請案(Continuation Application,CA)是比較貼近其他各國的分割申請案的樣態。

美國專利:
美國延續申請案35 U.S.C. 120(AIA後):

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 field in the United States, or as provided by section 363 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. ...

美國分割申請案35 U.S.C. 121(AIA後):

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.

有趣的是,從法條本身找「amend、修正」的關鍵字,只有35 U.S.C. 120有修正的規範,這也是CA給申請人的彈性,在發明內容、實施例與原母案一致的條件下,可修正整篇說明書,並可提出新的申請專利範圍。

「分割申請案(DIV)」是從母案選出「限制選擇程序中未選擇」的申請專利範圍提出分割案申請,原則上遞件時「無須修正」,若要修正應該是申請後(或申請同時)提出的preliminary amendments。

歐洲專利:
歐洲專利的分割案沒有不一樣的地方,但是由於都是架構在case law,仍可以就當中的案例討論(應該要挑幾個來討論)。

提出歐洲分割申請案,常見也是因為在母案檢索階段接獲「不符單一性規定」的官方意見(OA, 或稱communication),有些請求項並未列入檢索(或是未被選擇要審查)的對象中,日後,申請人可針對這部分申請專利範圍提出分割申請案。

歐洲分割申請案自然不能超出原母案揭露內容,分割案提出時可以一併修正,不能超出原內容。

歐洲申請案的修正規定在Art. 123 EPC,EPO至少提供一次讓申請人主動修正的機會,包括提出分割申請案時,這時可以依照規定,在不超出專利內容的條件下擴大專利範圍,一旦獲准就不能修正擴大範圍了。

Article 123 Amendments (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar123.html)
(1)
The European patent application or European patent may be amended in proceedings before the European Patent Office, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. In any event, the applicant shall be given at least one opportunity to amend the application of his own volition. 
(2)
The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. 
(3)
The European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers. 

Article 76 European divisional applications (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar76.html)
(1)
A European divisional application shall be filed directly with the European Patent Office in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. It may be filed only in respect of subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed; in so far as this requirement is complied with, the divisional application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application and shall enjoy any right of priority. 
(2)
All the Contracting States designated in the earlier application at the time of filing of a European divisional application shall be deemed to be designated in the divisional application. 

參考連結:
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_f_2_2.htm

[法條,以下保留case law連結]
2.2.
Amendments to divisional applications
Divisional applications are new applications which are separate and independent from the earlier applications. Amendments to a divisional application are thus allowed under Art. 123(2) EPC to the same extent as amendments of any other non-divisional application (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, points 9.1-9.2 of the Reasons).
Amendments may be allowed even if the divisional application as filed contains – contrary to Art. 76(1), second sentence, first half sentence, EPC – subject-matter extending beyond the earlier application as filed. Such a divisional application is not to be considered "invalid" (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, point 2.9 of the Reasons). It may still be amended during examination proceedings so that it complies with the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC, provided always, however, that the amendment complies with the other requirements of the EPC (see G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, point 7 of the Reasons). Even if the earlier application is no longer pending, it remains possible to amend a divisional application to bring it in line with the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, points 8.1-8.2 of the Reasons).
If a divisional application is amended, it must meet both the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC and those of Art. 123(2) EPC, so as to preclude the introduction of new subject-matter into the examination proceedings (see, among many others, 284/85441/92873/94OJ 1997, 4561221/971008/99561/00402/00423/03).
連結:http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/c_ix_1_4.htm

1.4
Examination of a divisional application 
The substantive examination of a divisional application should in principle be carried out as for any other application but the following special points need to be considered. The claims of a divisional application need not be limited to subject-matter already claimed in claims of the parent application. Furthermore, no abuse of the system of divisional applications can be identified in the mere fact that the claims of the application on which the Examining Division had then to decide had a broader scope than the claims granted in relation with the parent application (see T 422/07).
......


資料參考:USPTO, EPO, bitlaw.com

my two cents:
若名為「分割申請案」,但又想修正專利範圍或是內容(誤繕與澄清為由),名正言順的話,應該是提出「延續申請案(CA)」。

另一種方式,大概就在提出分割申請案之後,在OA答辯過程「調整」到想要的範圍,或是在接獲第一次OA之前提出初步修正(preliminary amendments)。

分割申請案的初步修正討論:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/04/blog-post_4.html

其他參考(這類議題總是值得討論的議題,而類似以下的連結只會多不會少):


(本篇提到一些策略,如:
"短期策略,這發生在有一專利申請案中的較廣範圍遭遇核駁,但可能其下位技術可以獲准,或是很有希望透過限縮獲准,但是卻又不想放棄較廣範圍的專利,於是,可以在接獲核駁意見後法定期限內(3-6個月)提出CA案,CA案主要範圍是母案中可以獲准(或可能經限縮而可獲准的)的範圍,為的是先拿到一個專利(可能比較貼近實際產品);為了取得具有侵略性的專利,母案則繼續答辯,期待獲准另一個範圍更廣的專利。

長期策略,有價值的專利佈局通常是多面相的專利保護佈局,比如以多個角度去界定一個技術(產品),讓專利相關技術不容易被迴避,因此價值可以更高。於是母案(可為多種母案、多個provisional applications)所涵蓋技術特徵應該多樣、豐富,使得延續案操作的角度更有彈性。這樣的專利佈局有利於授權、保護授權廠商利益、建立技術門檻、涵蓋更多的可能侵權者(上下游),自然也提高授權金或買賣金額。"


順便補充一下我國分割案修正的時機,審查前後有所不同,內容來自:https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=504223&ctNode=7633&mp=1

專利案申請分割時,原申請案為分割而同時進行的修正,也要受到期間限制嗎?
答:分割申請時,若原申請案(母案)因分割而需修正,該修正於審定前均得為之。惟分割後,原申請案(母案)及分割案(子案)之修正,則有期限限制。即發明(設計)必須在申請人於本局發給審查意見通知前,提出修正。於本局發給審查意見通知後,僅得於該通知指定之期間內提出修正;申請人於初審核駁審定後,提出再審查時,於本局發給再審查意見通知前,仍得提出修正。惟於本局發給再審查意見通知後,僅得於該通知指定之期間內提出修正(專利法第43條第3項、專利法第142條準用專利法第43條第3項)。

Ron

2017年9月29日 星期五

怎麼以BRI解釋「BODY」 - In re Smith Int’l (Fed. Cir. 2017)

本篇討論解釋專利範圍的議題,解釋時應參考說明書作出最廣且合理的解釋("broadest  reasonable interpretation"),但卻不能是最廣且可能的解釋("broadest possible interpretation")。

In re Smith Int’l (Fed. Cir. 2017)案件資訊:
上訴人:IN RE: SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
系爭專利:US6,732,817

本案緣起PTAB同意USPTO審查委員於再審(re-examination)程序中作出專利無效的決定,專利權人不服,上訴CAFC。

系爭專利US6,732,817關於一種鑽井工具,為可擴充的擴孔器(underreamer),並用安定的功能,裝置在鑽孔部件到一定程度時,可移動手臂,其中可流動流體,折疊去適應不同大小的孔徑,進行擴孔的工作。根據Claim 1內容,這個鑽井工具為在井筒內的鑽孔部件,包括有管狀體,其中有可以流動流體的結構,包括有可移動臂,可以因應壓差而移動。

1. An expandable downhole tool for use in a drilling assembly positioned within a wellbore, comprising:
tubular body including at least one axial recess, a plurality of angled channels formed into a wall of said at least one axial recess, and an axial flowbore extending therethrough; and
at least one moveable arm;
wherein said at least one moveable arm translates along said plurality of angled channels between a collapsed position and an expanded position in response to a differential pressure between said axial flowbore and said wellbore.

爭議中的Claim 28界定的可擴充鑽井工具包括有「BODY」,以及可以根據井孔徑改變的可移動手臂。

28. An expandable downhole tool for use in a drilling assembly positioned within a wellbore having an original diameter borehole and an enlarged diameter borehole, comprising:
a body; and
at least one non-pivotable, moveable arm having at least one borehole engaging pad adapted to accommodate cutting structures or wear structures or a combination thereof;
wherein said at least one arm is moveable between a first position defining a collapsed diameter, and a second position defining an expanded diameter approximately equal to said enlarged diameter borehole.

主要爭議在於,解釋專利範圍時要用多廣的範圍來解釋其中元件,如Claim 28中的「BODY」,請求項中對此元件並未有進一步描述,其中就專利說明書而言,這個BODY明顯為鑽孔工具的"主體",卻非一個人的"身體"。如系爭專利說明書提到的「筒身(tubular body)」、圓柱體工具主體(cylindrical tool body)、以及具有流體孔的筒身(body with a flowbore therethrough in fluid communication with the wellbore annulus),大概都是描述510這個元件,解釋時還不至於無限上綱到其他東西上。

但就是有人會從中找到話題。

不過,就此元件「BODY」來說,仍留下一定程度的「廣泛」解釋空間,比如BODY中到底有哪些,就說明書而言,多處指向「BODY 510」這個元件,應該是「圓筒形筒身」;卻也好像是指整個鑽孔工具,但請求項又區分出「BODY」以及「Moveable Arm」兩個元件,所以合理來說,「BODY」可能是包括了除了「moveable arm」以外的鑽孔工具的其他元件


若以最廣且合理解釋(BRI)原則解釋專利範圍,用上述"「BODY」包括了除了「moveable arm」以外的鑽孔工具的其他元件"來解釋「body」(“the overall portion or portions of the downhole tool that define the bore and may include one or more other elements.”),USPTO與PTAB就能夠輕易地找到前案對比其中元件而駁回專利,只要有前案被涵蓋到「body」的解釋中,「下位」的先前技術就可以用來核駁「上位」的後申請案。

"In reexaminations, the Board gives claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the claim language and specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)."

先前技術Eddison:


PTAB同意USPTO意見:



真的可以這麼廣嗎?案件上訴到CAFC,法官有些不同意見。

根據判決書,CAFC法官對於PTAB針對「BODY」的解釋,認為,即便可以採用最廣且合理的原則(BRI)解釋專利範圍,但"不能合理地廣",至少不能誤解到脫離了專利說明書與相關記錄的意思。

根據請求項28,「BODY」沒有多餘的解釋,但說明書也沒有說這是一般的BODY,而是描述這個BODY是整個裝置的一個元件,可以區隔其他元件(如mandrel, piston, and drive ring),而非涵蓋到其他元件的BODY,因此認為USPTO與PTAB在此元件的解釋是錯的

這裡法官給了一個有點"廣泛"的解釋原則:

參照說明書並以最廣且合理解釋專利範圍,並非是以說明書排除其他廣泛的解釋,也不是解釋到與說明書不一致的情況,解釋是要對應到發明人在說明書描述的發明("it is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification"),也就是,解釋專利範圍(元件)時,要與說明書一致。


雖然PTAB認為發明人並未在說明書定義何謂BODY,說明書也沒有不允許作出所謂合理的解釋,但CAFC法官認為,這個態度可能導致解釋專利範圍時作出「最廣而可能的解釋("broadest possible interpretation"),這樣是不適當的。

法官最後認為,系爭專利說明書分別描述了「body」、「moveable arms」、「mandrel」、「piston」與「drive ring」等元件,這並不支持PTAB的最廣解釋,因為這個基礎錯誤,使得其他PTAB的結論也是錯的。

my two cents:
當解釋專利範圍有錯時,將影響全盤皆墨的結果,CAFC法官常用這個原則全盤否決所作出可能是正確的結論(前案Eddison仍可能是駁回系爭專利的證據),因此,基礎(解釋專利範圍)在專利爭議中是太重要的事了。

一般專利案審查時不曉得落到誰的手中,有點運氣成份,有人就會很為申請人著想,有人就是會比較刁鑽地找事做,不過應該都沒有錯,都有一定的"合理"成份,於是,專利申請人/發明人/專利工程師就要在「自保」的原則上撰寫專利說明書,有一定程度的「明確性」總是不會錯的。

像台灣審查委員不太喜歡「A system, comprising」這種寫法,所以就盡量讓它完整一點,如「A management system, comprising...」,或「A system for managing ..., comprising...」,對於專利範圍不會有影響的。

判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2303.Opinion.9-22-2017.1.PDF
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/ys3u2g2woav1qrb49u5wuyhjdmmhl7i8

資料參考:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/09/broadest-reasonable-construction.html

Ron

2017年9月27日 星期三

區塊鏈手機 - Finney

很少在這裡「介紹3C產品」,這回當一下3C達人,恐怕檯面上的3C達人不曉得有這個手機。

Sirin Labs(https://www.sirinlabs.com/


以色列公司Sirin Labs發表第一支區塊鏈手機,稱為「Finney」,依照Sirin Labs網站寫的,這是尊榮比特幣先驅"Hal Finney"所命名的,Finney」是一支足夠安全而能儲存數位貨幣的手機,簡單來說,這是一支數位貨幣的電子錢包兼手機,可以自己發送token,採用Sirin Labs自己的「SRN token」。同時,Sirin Labs也開發出一款同等能力的電腦。手機賣到與iphone X一般的價格:$999,電腦反倒便宜:$799。



Finney手機規格:
  • 5.2-inch QHD Display
  • 256GB of internal memory storage
  • 8GB RAM
  • Wi-Fi 802.11ac
  • BT 5.0
  • 16MP Main camera
  • 12MP Wide-Angle selfie camera
Finney電腦規格:
  • 24-inch (diagonal) 2K Display
  • Biometric security sensors
  • 8GB Memory
  • 256GB storage
  • Wi-Fi 802.11ac
Finney裝置安裝開放源碼的作業系統 - Shield OS™,以及採用區塊鏈技術,是由IOTA(https://iota.org/提供的「Tangle technology」,可以執行安全的P2P資源分享與加密錢包與分散式帳本的功能。

主要技術有:網路安全、數位貨幣錢包、分散式的帳本應用、去中心化APP、安全P2P資源分享、提供SDK。

裝置軟硬體架構:


Shield OS™架構:


其中特別之一是Finney裝置彼此之間可以分享資源,如手機的儲存空間、照相機、功能等。


Finney裝置白皮書:https://www.sirinlabs.com/media/SIRINLABS_-_ICO_White_Paper.pdf

過去,也曾經發表一支1萬6千美元的超安全手機 - Solarin

(updated on Oct. 2, 2017)
Sirin目前可找到的專利有三組:
專利權人:SIRIN ADVANCED TECH LTD

IL241997
WO2017064697


US D787465


IL238581
WO2016178209


my two cents:
誰需要這樣的手機?當然是有錢人,包括極需要隱私權的名人。

資訊來源:
The world's first blockchain smartphone is in development
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/26/blockchain-smartphone-sirin-finney-solarin/

This blockchain-powered phone and PC could be out next year
https://thenextweb.com/finance/2017/09/26/this-blockchain-powered-phone-and-pc-could-be-out-next-year/#.tnw_WBdHENDN

Shocker: There’s not much of a market for $16,000 phones
https://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2017/03/16/shocker-theres-not-much-of-a-market-for-16000-phones/#.tnw_pSseTaHu

其他資料:
區塊鏈與虛擬貨幣技術應用 - 專利與產品(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/09/blog-post_21.html

Ron

區塊鏈、新零售與專利上傳版

區塊鏈、新零售與專利上傳版
 

Ron

2017年9月26日 星期二

單一引證案的顯而易見性核駁討論 - Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd., v. SFC Co. Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

「單一引證案的顯而易見性/進步性核駁意見」的主要概念是,引證案涵蓋系爭案申請專利範圍的主要技術特徵,而未涵蓋的特徵則是相關領域技術人員「慣用手段」或是為「公知技術」而對系爭案發明沒有貢獻。使得審查委員可以引用單一引證案作出顯而易見的核駁意見。顯然,審查委員在認定部分引證案未教示或揭露的部分作出了比較「主觀」的判斷,這部分常常是灰色地帶,也往往是可爭辯的點。要不然,最好配合另一引證文獻補足主要引證案的欠缺。

案件資料:
上訴人/專利權人:IDEMITSU KOSAN CO., LTD.
被上訴人:SFC CO. LTD.
系爭專利:US8,334,648(IPR2015-00564

本案系爭專利經IPR異議程序後,PTAB作出專利無效(顯而易見)的決定,而對照先前技術WO 02/052904 (“Arakane”)與系爭專利Idemitsu有重疊的發明人。

系爭專利'648關於一種有機電致發光器和有機發光介質,請求項1如下,界定一個包括在正負電極之間的有機介質的裝置,當有電壓施加於電極上,可以激發出光線。


引證前案WO 02/052904與系爭專利為同一申請人,是日文案,同樣也是關於有機電致發光器的專利,揭露了這類發光器中的arylamine,以及anthracene衍生物。




在IPR異議階段,PTAB採用異議人SFC Co. Ltd.提出的部分理由,主要是引用Arakane作出的顯而易見性核駁意見,專利無效。

在上訴CAFC中,系爭專利專利權人Idemitsu對於PTAB作出前案Arakane教示(teach)組合特定成份能得到系爭專利中發光層的議題上提出爭辯,因為認為PTAB在引用前案解釋系爭專利'648時,作出錯誤的假設:

(1) a skilled artisan would have expected that all disclosed HT ("hole transporting") compounds in Arakane have a lower energy gap than all disclosed ET ("electron transporting") compounds; or 

(2) Arakane suggests combinations of HT and ET compounds that do not satisfy the energy gap relation in addition to combinations that do. 

根據PTAB的決定,以上HT與ET的成份組成形成了系爭專利的發光層,但是否從前案可以教示因為組合了HT與ET而達到系爭專利激發光線所需的能隙(energy gap)


根據Idemitsu的答辯,也就是在Idemitsu比較熟悉的技術上,認為或許前案Arakane有了HT與ET等成份的揭示,但異議人SFC Co. Ltd.並沒有解釋為何相關領域技術人員可以經過組合HT與ET而達到滿足發光條件的能隙。反過來,異議人SFC Co. Ltd.回覆,前案Arakane並未反向教示(teach away)這個組合,儘管似乎缺乏證明這個組合可以得到的能隙。


看似這是個有利專利權人Idemitsu的來往辯論,卻因為專利權人Idemitsu答辯時一個「失誤」,認為異議人並沒有證據顯示前案Arakane反向教示「非能隙的組合」,但異議人SFC Co. Ltd.簡單回應相關領域技術人員並非沒有權做這件事。

雖有此算是頗有機會的回應,但是在CAFC法官眼中,對於這個「事實發現」的議題,法官就看「實質證據」為何,包括判斷前案Arakane是否反向教示任何「非能隙的組合」,反倒是認為異議人並沒有責任需要提出如專家證詞的必要,仍是站在PTAB這邊。

最後,CAFC法官根據前案Arakane的揭露內容(摘要),認為前案教示HT與ET的組合,但無關其能隙,反倒認為這些組合在前後兩案的發明人可以知悉不同能隙的兩種成份的組合使得有機電致發光器可以比前案更有效地發光。

CAFC認為系爭專利不具非顯而易知性。

my two cents:
看來,CAFC法官面對一些證據不足的異議內容,或是PTAB不清楚的論點都有"自我滿足"的立場,專利權人算是被打的有點不明不白。

判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2721.Opinion.9-14-2017.1.PDF
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/c1v6uz7gzjlls3c0gbzrinhcxix09evu

資料參考:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/09/single-reference-obviousness.html

Ron

2017年9月21日 星期四

區塊鏈與虛擬貨幣技術應用 - 專利與產品

會計與顧問公司EY(Ernst & Young Global Ltd.)新聞稿:
http://www.ey.com/gl/en/newsroom/news-releases/news-ey-advancing-future-of-transportation-with-launch-of-blockchain-based-integrated-mobility-platform

EY啟動名為「Tesseract」基於區塊鏈(blockchain)技術的汽車共享計畫,也就是讓車主在汽車閒置時,可以通過共享機制分享給需要的人,並可從中獲取一些利益,是「共享」汽車的概念。其實,汽車共享應該不是新的概念,只是實施性不高,有很多待克服的技術,直到現在行動裝置、網路、定位技術,以及區塊鏈技術的搭配應用逐漸成熟時。實施時,使用者在行動裝置上安裝軟體,用以設定汽車分享與使用,並提供第三方支付,其中用區塊鏈技術記錄所有使用記錄、費用、保險。汽車共享計畫讓使用者在需要時可以隨需求找到車(on demand)。這個計畫顯然是為了將來無人自動車的世界做準備。

路透社新聞:
Blockchain technology moves into car sharing, mobility services

這裡提到,用於數位貨幣的技術用在汽車共享的應用上,除了上述EY的討論外,更提到Toyota也要將區塊鏈技術應用在汽車工業上,如保險。另有10個食品與零售公司從IBM討教區塊鏈技術,要用在食品供應鏈上。Microsoft也要將區塊鏈技術應用在商業交易,甚至Alphabet公司(Google)想讓消費者與企業使用數位貨幣。

Fortune報導:

當食品安全受到重視時,消費者開始注重食品從產地到消費者手中的過程,區塊鏈技術實現食品的可追溯性,從產地開始,給予食品ID(如QR碼),用區塊鏈技術紀錄生產過程(產地、農夫)、運送、經銷、零售、監理到消費者手上,區塊鏈技術讓各種階段的人可以追溯過程,特別是消費者可以掃一下QR馬,立刻從區塊鏈紀錄的帳本得到整個過程的資訊,且不得竄改。

Fortune報導:

同樣是區塊鏈技術提供了商品的可追溯性,包括鑽石,讓消費者可以了解買到的鑽石的來源、交易,以及是否是血鑽石?這些都可應用在其他各樣的奢侈品上。

其中提到一個利用區塊鏈技術防詐騙的平台:Everledger(https://www.everledger.io/)。一個中文的報導:http://www.ithome.com.tw/news/109186,Everledger解決了鑽石交易文件容易被偽造的問題,提供了「數位金庫」的概念,降低許多失竊與偽造的問題,目前數位金庫已經有98萬筆區塊鏈紀錄。

區塊鏈既然是兵家必爭之地,競爭之下訴訟難免,例如分別有許多銀行支持的R3聯盟與Ripple Labs,報導如:http://fortune.com/2017/09/08/blockchain-r3-sues-ripple-labs/

這個訴訟與專利無關,而是兩個陣營之間的利益糾紛,Ripple Labs自己發行一種數位貨幣XRP,R3簽了購買合約,結果Ripple終止合約,R3於是告上法院,認為合約期間並未允許Ripple可以片面終止。猜想,Ripple終止合約一定是合約中記載的購買金額"低於"當下與美金之間的匯率,認為不划算吧!

這裡有個虛擬貨幣的目前匯率報告:https://coinmarketcap.com/(Sep. 21, 2017 台北時間),這裡列舉全世界有1124種虛擬貨幣。

分享幾件有關利用區塊鏈技術的公告或申請中專利。

Everledger似乎沒有申請專利,但倒是有專利提到「Everledger」。

例如:"Hoverkey"公司的US 20160261411US 20160261411關於利用行動裝置執行交易的安全性技術,有關認證技術,指出在其APP中使用比特幣作為交易的貨幣,且Hoverkey公司提出的two-factor認證技術讓使用者在存取Everledger的區塊鏈內容更為安全與方便。

例如:Max2公司的US 20170169363,專利關於一種平台,提供使用者利用行動裝置執行探索、電子商務、傳訊與支付等服務,其中利用區塊鏈技術提供使用者彼此交易與物品租賃的機制,由區塊鏈技術記載交易內容。

例如:Bitmark公司的US 20160300234,專利關於"去中心化"紀錄的技術,明顯是區塊鏈技術。

還有:Wal-Mart的US20170147975關於無人機遞送物件的技術,其中利用區塊鏈紀錄交易過程,以及身份認證的用途,特別是「無人機」遞送過程,如果還需要人力去確認中間遞送程序與交貨認證,那就大費周章,顯然,Wal-Mart已經"預備好了"。

"The delivery box 18 and/or computer in communication with the delivery box 18 may supplement the delivery blockchain with information on the product's status, and further adjust its internal conditions (temperature, etc.) based on the findings of the product's status as well as the appropriate conditions that must be met."


my two cents:
看來,區塊鏈已經漸漸地深入我們生活中了。

其他補充:
IBM發布企業等級區塊鏈應用(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/07/ibmmemo.html
區塊鏈專利筆記(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/12/blog-post_22.html
全球最大區塊鏈聯盟R3(R3CEV LLC,http://www.r3cev.com/

資訊來源:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-blockchain/blockchain-technology-moves-into-car-sharing-mobility-services-idUSKCN1BA1PH

中文資訊:http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=13734

Ron

2017年9月19日 星期二

對相同專利權提出多次IPR程序的考量因素,以及潛在不公平的議題

General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)

本篇報導涉及IPR異議人(petitioner)對相同專利權提出多件IPR的議題,對於這種類似「干擾」或是「重複工作」的議題,USPTO提出一些考量因素。

35 U.S.C. § 314為IPR的基本規範,包括提供PTAB主管決定是否啟始IPR的權力、決定啟始時間,甚至PTAB主管的決定是不能被挑戰(上訴)的。

這回,當爭議告一段落時,USPTO依據IPR過程中PTAB的決定,針對IPR異議人在某件IPR程序接近結束(拒絕啟始)時,又提出其他針對相同專利相同專利範圍的IPR程序的情況,作出(或說"強調")以下幾個考量因素("Applying Factors to Evaluate the Equities of Permitting Follow-on Petitions is a Proper Exercise of Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)"):
  1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent;
  2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it;
  3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition;
  4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition;
  5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent;
  6. the finite resources of the Board; and
  7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review.
考量因素一:是否請願人(petitioner)之前已經對相同專利的相同請求項範圍提出請願?
考量因素二:是否第一次請願時已知(或應該知道)第二次請願中的先前技術?
考量因素三:是否提出第二次請願時已經接獲專利權人對第一次請願的初步答辯書(preliminary response),或是已經接獲PTAB作出是否啟始IPR的決定;
考量因素四:考量請願人知悉第二次請願中提出的先前技術與提出第二次請願的時間間隔;
考量因素五:是否請願人對相同專利的相同請求項範圍提出多次請願的時間差提供充分的解釋?
考量因素六:考量PTAB的有限資源;
考量因素七:考量在PTAB主管作出啟始決定後一年內作出IPR最終決定的時間規定。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

案件資訊:
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)
IPR異議人:GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
專利權人:CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA
IPR案號:
Case IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
Case IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
Case IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
Case IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
Case IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)

本案緣起異議人General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.對專利權人Canon Kabushiki Kaisha提出五件IPR,而IPR決定皆為拒絕啟始,其中涉及對相同專利權提出多件IPR的議題。

這是一件類似合併審理的案件,因為IPR請願人General PlasticCanon的專利提出多件IPR異議,這雖然是一個「高壓式」的訴訟技巧,想要讓對手伏首稱臣,卻也可能造成全盤皆墨。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPR2016-01357為例,系爭專利'820關於印表機墨粉盒的設計與運作,異議人提出引證案挑戰系爭專利請求項,並在PTAB拒絕啟始IPR時,又接著提出幾件針對相同專利權的IPR,但不同次的petition使用不同的先前技術。

IPR2016-01357


Canon根據35 U.S.C. § 314規定,PTAB拒絕異議人對於相同專利權(相同專利、相同專利範圍)提出後續請願的規定是基於法條中不得對IPR決定提出上訴的規範,然而,這幾次petition都引用不同先前技術,或許並非不合法,因為實質議題是不同的。

但是,PTAB仍拒絕異議人後續提出的IPR,理由是第一次與第二次IPR異議程序提出時間相隔9個月以上,專利權人已經完成初步答辯,且已經作出第一次IPR拒絕啟始的決定,PTAB的理由包括:

PTAB認定異議人早在之前已經知悉後續加入的先前技術,沒有證據顯示需要新的檢索得到新的證據,也沒有需要一定要回應此類新的先前技術。

"As to Suzuki, General Plastic does not assert, or even suggest, that the reference could not have been found by an earlier reasonable prior art search. The record is also devoid of evidence that there were unexpected or changed circumstances that would have prompted a new later search. For instance, there is no allegation that new art was sought to respond to an issue like the adoption of a claim construction that differed from the construction advocated by General Plastic in the First Petition."

PTAB引用過去案例Nvidia的IPR決定:對於相同專利權作出一系列攻擊存在著潛在的不公平(potential inequity),會因專利權人的答辯或是PTAB的決定而可能轉變訴訟立場,因此這類議題應該要重視。

"The potential inequity based on a petitioner’s filing of serial attacks against the same claims of the same patent, while having the opportunity to adjust litigation positions along the way based on either the patent owner’s contentions responding to prior challenges or the Board’s decision on prior challenges, is real and cannot be ignored."

這樣表示,在一系列強力攻擊的態勢會可能造成一種潛在不公平,反而會讓審查者對被攻擊方產生同情

如此,PTAB反而不是因為"事實",而是因為「情況」而作出拒絕啟始的決定(
IPR2016-01357)。

"The filing of sequential attacks against the same claims, with the opportunity to morph positions along the way, imposes inequities on Canon. Here, absent any rationale as to why these challenges could not have been brought earlier, and weighing the respective inequalities, we view the prejudice to Canon under these circumstances to be greater than that to General Plastic. We, therefore, decline to institute inter partes review here."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

擴大PTAB決定:

當然,畢竟提起訴訟是人民的權力,應該沒有限制次數才是。異議人General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.不服,似乎陷入另一種不平的泥淖,針對前述多件IPR的決定提出「重審請求」("Requests for Rehearing of each of the Decisions Denying Institution of inter partes review"),要求啟始各IPR程序。

異議人General Plastic提出反制,認為PTAB錯誤採用如前述Nvidia案例的考量因素,認為PTAB偏袒專利權人。

不過PTAB仍否決異議人提出重審的請願,理由一:大委員會並非標準程序,除非有「特別重要的議題(exceptional importance)」,這不同於EPO的擴大訴願委員會,Enlarged Board or Appeal等同於法院的程序。

理由二:提出重審的一方有責任指出之前的決定有誤解或忽視的議題。
"A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply."

理由三:如果要重審,是因為先前決定錯誤解釋法條、有具體證據證明錯誤事實發現、依據不合理因素的判決。

接著,針對對相同專利權提出多次IPR的情況,PTAB提出幾點考量因素(本文開始已經敘述),在這些考量下,PTAB仍作出不啟始決定("Applying these factors to the follow-on petitions, we concluded that the circumstances did not warrant institution of inter partes reviews.")

"For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion, or that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue, in denying institution of inter partes reviews in Cases IPR2016-01357, IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, and IPR2016-01361."

my two cents:
連續出擊應該是可以讓人伏首稱臣的手段之一,顯然需要財力雄厚的基礎,然而,是否「干擾」到原本的程序,造成「潛在的不公平」問題,或是心態被質疑,這些都很微妙,應該也沒有準則,但是,確實在訴訟中要小心證據提出的時機,當有偏袒時,已經來不及。

或是,就針對這些僵化、陷入泥淖的議題提出上訴CAFC,轉個陣地可以改變各種環境因素。

USPTO提供IPR決定連結:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/general_plastic_industrial_co_ltd_v_canon_kabushiki_kaisha_ipr2016_01357_paper_19.pdf?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/fnkfdsdvru3jj0ic6vqxvfu5lv1nbckp

[相關法條]

35 U.S. Code § 314 - Institution of inter partes review

(a)Threshold.—
The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
(b)Timing.—The Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 311 within 3 months after—
(1)
receiving a preliminary response to the petition under section 313; or
(2)
if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date on which such response may be filed.
(c)Notice.—
The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent owner, in writing, of the Director’s determination under subsection (a), and shall make such notice available to the public as soon as is practicable. Such notice shall include the date on which the review shall commence.
(d)No Appeal.—
The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.

35 U.S. Code § 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

(a)Regulations.—The Director shall prescribe regulations—
(11)
requiring that the final determination in an inter partes review be issued not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter, except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year period by not more than 6 months, and may adjust the time periods in this paragraph in the case of joinder under section 315(c);


本部落格涉及35 U.S.C. § 314的文章:

拒絕重審決定檔案備份:https://app.box.com/s/fnkfdsdvru3jj0ic6vqxvfu5lv1nbckp
IPR2016-01357決定:https://app.box.com/s/7dxd68d8mt4pt7vcjjk62qgf2dvzp4oc

Ron