Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101236
|
| Title: | 從美國發明法案看專利複審程序之證據發現實務
The PTAB Discovery Procedure under Post-Grant Proceedings |
| Authors: | 陳冠穎 |
| Contributors: | 馮震宇
陳冠穎 |
| Keywords: | 美國發明法案
證據發現程序
專利複審程序
專利審理暨訴願委員會
AIA
PTAB
Limited discovery
Addional discovery |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-09-02 01:28:53 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 知識經濟時代下，智慧財產權對企業之影響日趨重要，如何妥適管理、保護其智慧財產甚至建立企業對外之智財策略更是一項重大工程。其中尤以專利權之保護與管理更為棘手。近年許多企業利用專利訴訟作為排擠競爭對手之手段，尤其當專利訴訟發生於國外時，我國企業面對來自國外企業或本地企業外地訴訟之壓力或禁制令威脅，往往使企業疲於奔命，或因而負擔鉅額損害賠償金額，削弱企業投注研發創新之能量。面對當地專利濫訴現象頻繁、專利獎勵發明鼓勵創新與技術累積之宗旨受到極大挑戰之情形下，美國於2011年9月16日由總統歐巴馬簽署，通過美國專利法立法以來變動篇幅，影響最大之美國發明法案。其中該法案提出之核准後複審程序(PGR)、多方複審程序(IPR)以及涵蓋商業方法專利過渡複審程序(CBM)將專利有效性爭議轉由美國專利審理暨訴願委員會(PTAB)處理，以更為迅速、費用更為合理之程序快速解決專利有效性爭議，減輕聯邦法院專利訴訟之負擔，同時為美國專利品質提出更有效率之檢驗機制。
其中，美國專利商標局下之專利審理暨訴願委員會融合行政程序之高效率，兼具技術與法律專業知識之法官，提供類似訴訟性質之複審程序，自美國發明法案施行以來廣受歡迎，實行三年已累積達四千多件複審案件，足見複審程序已躍升為美國專利有效性爭議之主要解決舞台。故企業對於複審程序之認識與掌握更是刻不容緩。惟複審程序因融合訴訟性質而設有「證據發現程序」，其實踐上與美國一般民事訴訟或美國專利訴訟有所不同，係證據發現標的與方式更為限縮之有限證據發現程序。考量我國企業通常對於美國特有之證據發現程序並不熟悉，本文首先說明各複審程序之完整流程，建立對複審程序之具體框架，接著介紹美國證據發現程序之基本概念，輔以美國專利訴訟證據發現相關之補充規定，最後深入探討專利審理暨訴願委員會下，複審程序中當事人進行證據發現之期間規定、方式以及有限證據發現程序之特殊規定，同時本文就專利審理暨訴願委員會實際做成之重要案例中進行分析，歸納該委員會實務運作之審理標準，並嘗試從中提出企業未來於複審程序證據發現過程中事項或請求方法之建議，增加企業有效運用複審程序之機會。
Intellectual property plays a critical role in corporate development nowadays. Its management, protection and strategy-forming can be difficult for companies at times. Patent management, for instance, is one of the most challenging issues. Many companies use patent litigation in U.S. as a tool to exclude their competitors from entering the market, or to extract large amounts of damages and loyalties, causing Taiwanese companies to spend more money on litigation and settlement rather than on technology studies and development.
As the scale of patent litigations starts to distort patent system, the U.S. government decided to take action. In 2011, the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. Representing the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1970, AIA creates administrative remedy proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. However, to comply with statutory provisions and legislative intent of the AIA, the strong public policy leads to a limit discovery in AIA proceedings. Therefore, the scope of discovery in AIA proceedings before PTAB differs significantly from the scope of discovery, which is generally available under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in district court litigation.
To gain better understanding of the practice of discovery in AIA trials, and the trend regarding how PTAB accomplish AIA’s legislative intent through its decisions on motions for additional discovery, this study will start with introduction of the AIA post grant remedies including PGR, IPR and CBM. By stating the clarification of discovery concept in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this study will navigate the implementation of discovery in AIA trials and analyze decisions given by PTAB. Through observing the trend of PTAB discovery decisions, this study propose some possible solutions and strategies for Taiwanese company participating in post-grant proceedings before PTAB. |
| Reference: | 壹、 中文文獻
一、 專書
王承守、鄧穎懋，《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》，元照，2007年6月。
周延鵬，《智慧財產權全球行銷獲利聖經》，天下雜誌，2010年1月。
林洲富，專利法-案例式，3版，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，2011年。
林超駿、潘維大、成永裕、黃心怡、謝哲勝、高鳳仙、黃國昌、謝易宏、尹章華、王煦棋、李念祖、林利芝、李文琦、張明偉、張元宵，英美法常用名詞解析，新學林出版股份有限公司，2008年。
經濟部智慧財產局，美國專利需知，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。
劉尚志、王敏銓、張宇樞、林明儀、賴婷婷，美台專利訴訟實戰暨裁判解析，2版，元照，2012年。
馮震宇，《智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究》，元照，2011年1月。
馮震宇，《鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產：從創新研發到保護運用》，元照，2011年5月。
William Burnham著，林利芝譯，英美法導論 Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States (Second Edition)，元照出版社，2002年。
二、 學位論文
黃睦琪，〈從美國通過專利改革法案論跨國商務於訴訟上之因應策略–以被告防禦為中心〉，東吳大學跨國商務法律組碩士論文，2014年6月。
楊佩文，〈美國聯邦民事訴訟程序法有關證據開示程序之研究–以電子化儲存資訊為中心〉，國立交通大學，2009年12月。
楊鎮綱，〈民事訴訟法上證據開示制度之研究－以新法修正內容為中心〉，國立中正大學法律所碩士論文，2007年8月。
三、 期刊文章
楊崇森，〈美國民事訴訟制度之特色與對我國之啟示〉，軍法專刊，第56卷，第5期，2010年10月，頁5-44。
孫寶成，談美國專利改革法案，科技法律透析，第19卷第9期，2007年9月，頁18-39。
周碧凰，美國專利法修正案概況介紹，萬國法律，第 183期，2012年6月，頁86-90。
林明儀、劉尚志、王敏銓，美國專利訴訟中關於「律師-委託人特權」與「工作成果豁免權」之探討，科技法學評論，第2卷第1期，2005年4月，頁111-145。
馮浩庭，〈美國專利訴訟程序之研究—現況、困境與美國國會之修法回應〉，智慧財產權月刊 110 期，2008年2月，頁71-97。
貳、 外文文獻
一、 專書
EDWARD D. MANZO, AMERICA INVENTS ACT: A GUIDE TO PATENT LITIGATION AND PATENT PROCEDURE, Thomson Reuters Westlaw (Dec. 2015 ed)
二、 研究報告
Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, Executive Office of the President, June (2013)
Perkinscoie, Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Third Anniversary Report (2015)
PwC 2015 Patent Litigation Study: A Change in Patentee Fortunes (2015)
PTAB Monitor:Developments in Inter Partes Review Practice, Kaye Scholer (2016)
三、 期刊文章
Jason Rantanen & Lee Petherbridge, Toward A System of Invention Registration: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 110 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 24 (2011)
Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part I of II, 21 FED. CIRCUIT B.J. 435 (2012)
Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II,21 FED. CIRCUIT B.J. 539 (2012)
J. Steven Baughman, Choosing Inter Partes Reexamination or Review: What To File, And When?, 24 No. 9 Intell. Prop. & Tech. L.J. 8 (2012)
Robert A. Armitage, Understanding the America Invents Act and Its Implications for Patenting, 40 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2012)
Jason Rantanen, Lee Petherbridge & Jay P. Kesan, America Invents, More or Less,160 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 229 (2012)
Robert Harkins, How the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) Is Changing Patent Protection and Litigation, Thomson Reuters Aspatore (2013)
Paul M. Janicke, Overview of the New Patent Law of the United States, 21 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 63 (2013)
MaCharri Vorndran-Jones, Donna M. Meuth, Tom Irving, Deborah Herzfeld & Stacy Lewis, Top Five Dangers For the AIA Unwary, 5 No. 5 Landslide 10 (2013)
Melissa Cerro, Navigating A Post America Invents Act World: How the Leathy-Smith America Invents Act Supports Small Businesses, 34 J. Nat`l Ass`n Admin. L. Judiciary 193 (2014)
Jonathan Tamimi, Breaking Bad Patents: The Formula for Quick, Inexpensive Resolution of Patent Validity, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 587 (2014)
Carey C. Jordan & Iona Kaiser, Working With Inventors Post-AIA: Managing Inventor Challenges and Preventing Common Mistakes, 26 No. 6 Intell. Prop. & Tech. L.J. 14 (2014)
Yasser El-Gamal, Ehab Samuel & Peter Siddoway, The New Battlefield: One Year of Inter Partes Review Under the America Invents Act, 42 AIPLA Q.J. 39 (2014)
Mary R. Henninger, Jill K. MacAlpine, Amelia Feulner Baur, Anthony A. Hartmann, Lara C. Kelley,Rebecca M. McNeill, P. Andrew Riley & Michael A. Stramiello, Navigating the Limitations On Discovery In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings, 11 Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 135 (2015)
Joseph W. Dubis, Inter-Partes Review: A Multi-Method Comparison for Challenging Patent Validity, 6 Cybaris An Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 107 (2015).
Jonathan Stroud; Linda Thayer; Jeffrey C. Totten, Stay Awhile: The Evolving Law of District Court Stays In Light Of Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, and Covered Business Method Post Grant Review, 11 Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 226 (2015)
Laura Lydigsen, “Staying” Power: Litigation Stays Under the America Invents Act, 33-FALL Del. Law. 14 (2015)
Deborah E. Fishman & Paul Margulies, Making the Most of Limited Discovery Before the PTAB, PTAB Monitor: Developments in Inter Partes Review Practice, at 21, Kaye Scholer (2016)
David L. Cavanaugh and Jonathan R. Stroud, Precedent, Persuasion, and the PTAB, 8 No. 4 Landslide 56 (2016)
四、 美國行政法規與相關立法
USPTO, Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Correction April 27, 2016
USPTO, PTAB Final Rule changes to AIA trial practice, April 1, 2016
USPTO, Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Part II
USPTO, Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Part III
USPTO, Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Part IV
USPTO, Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Part V
Local Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
參、 網路資料
一、 中文部分
葉雲卿，〈專利訴訟系列–淺談專利訴訟費用與費用管理〉，北美智權報，2013年3月。
黃蘭閔，〈2013年美國專利法修法回顧〉，北美智權報，2014年1月。
徐仰賢，〈美國專利訴訟外之新選項–多方複審程序(IPR)介紹暨實務分析〉，科技產業資訊室，(最後瀏覽日:2016年5月25日)。
郝明輝，〈美國發明法案第二階段生效實施之新法規則已正式上路〉，三達智慧財產權事務所，2012年10月。
朱子亮，〈USPTO專利複審新規則 2016年5月2日上路〉，科技產業資訊室，2016年4月。
馮震宇，〈美國專利救濟制度改革複審救濟程序效益顯現〉，科技產業資訊室，2014年5月。
朱子亮，〈美國聯邦最高法院同意審理：IPR適用最寬廣合理解釋原則(In re Cuozzo Speed)〉，科技產業資訊室，2016年1月。
二、 外文部分
Portfolio Media. Inc.,Key E-Discovery Considerations In Patent Litigation, 2014.3.17,http://www.law360.com/articles/511411/key-e-discovery-considerations-in-patent-litigation(last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Baker Botts, PTAB Trials Overview, Baker Botts L.L.P. available at
http://www.bakerbotts.com/services/practice-areas/intellectual-property/ptab-trials/ptab-trial-faqs (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Jacob Oyloe, Claim Constructions In PTAB Vs. District Court, Law360, New York October 6, 2014, available at
https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/Reprint-Law360-Claim-Constructions-In-PTAB-Vs-DistCt-2014-Oyloe-Dowd-Cavanaugh.PDF (last visited Aug., 2016).
Charles. R. Macedo & Jung Hahm, Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP,at 5, available at
https://www.arelaw.com/images/article/link_pdf-1-1415047685-ARElaw_Understanding_PTAB_Trials101414.pdf (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Matthew A. Smith, A Critical Analysis of The Inter Partes Review Statute, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP, at 19, available at
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/343607/15081772/1321034614063/Critical_Analysis_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf?token=VTUrxZVG2inNFfTUhVmz70IHuKA%3D (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Randy Wu, Summary of December 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP., December 7, 2015
available at https://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Pages/Summary-of-December-2015-Amendments-to-the-Federal-Rules-of-Civil-Procedure.aspx (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Message From Administrative Patent Judges Jacqueline Bonilla and Sheridan Snedden: Routine and Additional Discovery in AIA Trial Proceedings: What Is the Difference?, AIA Blog (Sept. 30, 2014, 10:01 AM), available at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_administrative_patent_judges (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Gene Quinn, Patent Office Amends PTAB Trial Practice Rules, April 8,2016
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/08/patent-office-amends-ptab-trial-practice-rules/id=68089/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Alison Baldwin, PTAB Holds A Firm Line On Additional Discovery, 2015.Feb.20, http://www.law360.com/articles/620537/ptab-holds-a-firm-line-on-additional-discovery (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Eliot Williams, Privity And Strategic Considerations In PTAB Trials, 2014. March 28, http://www.law360.com/articles/516274/privity-and-strategic-considerations-in-ptab-trials (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Vic Souto, How PTAB Applies ’Interests of Justice ‘ Discovery Standard, https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/WilmerHale_Shared_Content/Files/PDFs/how-PTAB-applies-interests-of-justice-discovery-standard.pdf (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
Jeffrey C. Totten , PTAB applies narrow standards in granting first additional, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3f00c672-6f48-4112-ac04-32c974e105aa (last visited Aug.23, 2016)
Charles R. Macedo, Jung S.Hahm, Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings, https://www.arelaw.com/images/article/link_pdf-1-1415047685-ARElaw_Understanding_PTAB_Trials101414.pdf (last visited Aug. 23, 2016)
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Conducting Efficient Patent Litigation Discovery, http://www.mbhb.com/pubs/xpqPublicationDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=250 (last visited June 23, 2016)
Stach, Jason E. ,Not Your Typical Deposition: Differences Between a Litigation Deposition and an AIA Trial Deposition Before the Patent Office, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Available at http://www.finnegan.com/zh-CHT/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=779d3c90-0d8c-4ac1-b075-b432e9a256c1 (last visited Aug. 23, 2016)
Joseph Casino, Trends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings, Law360 available at http://www.law360.com/articles/581512/trends-from-2-years-of-aia-post-grant-proceedings (last visited Aug. 23, 2016). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
102364202 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102364202 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 420201.pdf | 1943Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 609 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
