PTAB就同一當事人提出的合并動議交由判例意見小組進行復審

#本文僅代表作者觀點，不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律師 及David Lindner律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

原標題：PTAB就同一當事人提出的合并動議交由判例意見小組進行復審

在多方復審程序中，如請愿人先后遞交兩份請愿，其中涉及相關聯(lián)專利或權利要求，作為同一當事人可否請求合并兩份請愿及加入先前所遞交的請愿？這一問題在PTAB的判例歷史中出現(xiàn)了相互矛盾的兩項裁決。PTAB就此召集判例意見小組，將對這一問題復審及解釋所涉及的35 U.S.C §315(c)法條。

美國專利審判與上訴委員會（“委員會”）接受了近期一位請愿人因合并動議（a motion for joinder）和多方復審（inter partes review ，“IPR”）被駁回而請求進行重審的要求，委員會召集了判例意見小組（Precedential Opinion Panel,“POP”）就所涉及的一項特殊問題進行復審。

在2018年12月3日所發(fā)布的裁決中（IPR2018-00914），委員會指出對35 U.S.C §315(c) 法條的解釋在歷史中出現(xiàn)相互矛盾的現(xiàn)象，該法條涉及對多項IPR程序的合并（joinder with other IPR proceedings），并授予PTAB局長自由裁量是否愿作為一方加入IPR程序的權利：“任何人根據(jù)§311條正確遞交了IPR請愿，在收到專利權人根據(jù)§313條對請愿作出的初步回復，或提交此類回復的時間屆滿時，局長根據(jù)§314條的要求對是否批準啟動IPR作出決策。”委員會要求POP對該法條作出解釋。

特別是，POP將對如下問題進行復審：請愿人是否可被準許加入一項其已為當事人的（先前）程序中；法條是否允許將新問題合并加入至現(xiàn)有程序中；35 U.S.C. § 315(b)法定時效限制對上述兩項問題有無約束。

法條拓展：

35 U.S.C §311 ：多方復審程序（Inter partes review）含義、范圍、遞交截止日進行概述的法條。

35 U.S.C §313：專利權人對IPR請愿進行初步回復（preliminary response to petition）所應涵蓋的內容及時限。

35 U.S.C §314：啟動IPR程序的門檻要求、作出裁決的時長、啟動通知和啟動裁決不可上訴之相關法條。

35 U.S.C. § 315(b)：法條要求IPR請愿需在請愿人、實質利益關系人、與請愿人有利益關系之人收到專利侵權訴狀之日起一年內遞交。前述規(guī)定的時效限制不適用于根據(jù)（c）條款所提出的合并（joinder）請求。

本次復審中POP的成員包括：Andrei Iancu - 商務部知識產(chǎn)權部副部長兼USPTO局長；Drew Hirshfeld – 專利委員會成員；及Scott R. Boalick - 代理首席行政專利法官。

案件背景：

本案源于Proppant Express Investments, LLC 和 Proppant Express Solutions, LLC（請愿人）在2017年9月，遞交對Oren Technologies （專利權人）9,511,929號專利的IPR開始（IPR2017-02103）。該專利涉及一種在水力壓裂過程中輸送顆粒物質的容器。專利權人于2017年12月作出回復并指出由于權利要求分組（claim grouping）出現(xiàn)錯誤，導致只對受挑戰(zhàn)權利要求中的一個子集啟動了復審。2018年4月，請愿人遞交了第二份IPR，其中尋求：對第一份IPR中被駁回的一項權利要求進行復審；及鑒于對原有請愿無需遞交新證據(jù)，請求將第二項IPR請愿與已啟動的第一項IPR進行合并的動議。請愿人辯稱委員會在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508中認為根據(jù)U.S.C §315(c)，同一當事人提出的合并動議是恰當?shù)摹?br/>

專利權人對第二項IPR請愿及合并動議回復稱，請愿人只是試圖根據(jù)35 U.S.C §315(c)將第二份IPR請愿作為所謂的“合并問題（issue joinder）”遞交，而非根據(jù)35 U.S.C §315(d)所規(guī)定的合并程序（consolidating proceedings）遞交，以此避免請愿人未能在一年時限內遞交第二份IPR請愿的事實。委員會駁回了第二份IPR請愿，指出請愿人“未能勤勉盡職對（第一份）請愿進行糾正，這不能作為我們對啟動裁決進行復審的理由?！?br/>

請愿人要求對委員會的決策進行復審，認為委員會曲解了35 U.S.C §315(c)，POP需解決在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508與SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485中相互矛盾法條的解釋。

Target案中，請愿人在一年法定時限后同樣遞交了第二份IPR請愿，其中包含了被第一份IPR排除在外的權利要求。第二份IPR請愿被駁回。在一份4比3的推翻裁決中，委員會的大多數(shù)指出因為存在一些模糊界定，對35 U.S.C §315(c) 立法歷史的回顧是有必要的?；诖?，大多數(shù)總結認為法條沒有排除同一請愿當事人加入（其第一份）IPR。反對意見認為法條對此含糊不清。在SkyHawke案中，請愿人同樣在超過一年法定時限后遞交第二份請愿，及與第一份請愿的合并動議。然而，在這一案件中委員會駁回了啟動（第二份請愿）與合并動議，指出鑒于立法歷史，合并動議只適用于（先前）程序中的非當事人。法院隨后認為一年時效限制適用于此。

這些矛盾的裁決為POP解決該類問題奠定基礎。委員會隨后要求當事人和任何法庭之友（amicus curiae）對2018年12月28日確定的問題提供額外的簡述報告，當事人可于2019年1月14日前進行答復。POP的決策將對當事人在遞交IPR請愿時的勤勉盡職產(chǎn)生重大影響，以確保請愿書全面涵蓋啟動IPR所涉及的所有問題及依據(jù)。

附：英文全文

PTAB Same Party Joinder Goes POP!

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) has convened a Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) for review of an “exceptional issue,” accepting a recent petitioner's request for rehearing of a decision denying a motion for joinder and inter partes review (IPR) petition[FD1] [HAR2] .  In an order filed December 3, 2018 (IPR2018-00914), the Board noted historically conflicting interpretations of 35 U.S.C §315(c), which relates to joinder with other IPR proceedings, and gives the Director discretion to join as a party to that IPR “any person who properly files a petition under §311 [such] that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section §313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response” may determine if institution of the IPR is warranted under §314.  The Board thus ordered that the POP address the interpretation of the statute.  Specifically, the POP will review whether a petitioner may be joined to a proceeding in which it is already a party, whether the statute permits joinder of new issues into an existing procedure, and whether the statutory time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has any impact on these two questions.

The members of the POP for this review are Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Drew Hirshfeld, Commission for Patents, and Scott R. Boalick, Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge.

The case arises from an IPR filed in September of 2017 (IPR2017-02103) by Proppant Express Investments, LLC and Proppant Express Solutions, LLC (“Petitioner”) against Oren Technologies (“Patent Owner”) over US patent number 9,511,929.  The patent relates to containers designed for transporting particulate material involved in hydraulic fracturing.  The Patent Owner responded in December of 2017, and noted an error in claim grouping that resulted in the institution of only a subset of the challenged claims.  In April 2018, the Petitioner filed a second IPR (“Late Petition”) seeking review of the single claim that was denied in the first IPR, along with a motion to join the Late Petition with the earlier instituted IPR on the basis that no new evidence was required in view of the original petition.  The Petitioner argued that the Board had previously recognized same-party joinder as appropriate under 35 U.S.C §315(c) citing Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 at 6–17 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015).

Patent Owner responded to the Late Petition and motion for joinder by arguing that the Petitioner was merely attempting to file the second petition as an alleged “issue joinder” under 35 U.S.C §315(c) rather than consolidating proceedings under 35 U.S.C §315(d) to avoid the fact that Petitioner did not file the second petition within the one-year bar period.  The Board denied institution of the Late Petition, stating that Petitioner’s “failure to diligently seek correction of its petition is not a basis for revisiting our Institution Decision.”

Petitioner requested a rehearing of the Board’s decision, stating that the Board misinterpreted 35 U.S.C §315(c), setting the stage for the POP to resolve conflicting interpretations of the statute in, Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 at 6–17 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) with SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485 (Paper 13)(Mar. 20, 2015).

In Target, petitioners also filed a second petition after the one-year statutory bar period to introduce a claim that was excluded from an earlier proceeding.  The second petition was denied.  In a 4-3 reversing decision, the Board’s majority noted that because there is some ambiguity, a review of the legislative history of 35 U.S.C §315(c) was warranted.  Based on this review, the majority concluded that the statute did not exclude the same petitioner from joining an IPR.  The dissent disagreed arguing that the statute was unambiguous.  In SkyHawke, petitioners also filed a second petition after expiration of the one-year bar, and a motion for joinder with an earlier proceeding.  However, in this case, the Board denied institution and joinder, finding that in light of the statute’s legislative history, joinder can only occur of a person not already a party to the proceeding.  The court further noted the one-year bar applied.

The conflicting rulings have set the stage for these issues to be resolved by the POP.  The Board further ordered additional briefing from the parties and any amicus curiae briefs on the identified issues by Dec. 28, 2018, with the parties filing responses by January 14, 2019.  The POP’s decision could greatly influence a party’s diligence for filing IPR petitions, to ensure that a petition comprehensively addresses all issues and bases for institution.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律師 及David Lindner律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產(chǎn)權資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉載此文章須經(jīng)權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”