Governing Law
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. 103 (Pre‑AIA): Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
Landmark Cases
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) (TSM test rejected)
"In the years since the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals set forth the essence of the TSM test, the Court of Appeals no doubt has applied the test in accord with these principles in many cases. There is no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Graham analysis. But when a court transforms the general principle into a rigid rule that limits the obviousness inquiry, as the Court of Appeals did here, it errs." 127 S.Ct. at 1741.KSR案的重點是拋棄了僵化的TSM測試。此外，判決文中還提到了許多判斷顯而易見性的要點，後來成為USPTO的MPEP中，判斷非顯而易見性時應審酌的內容。關於顯而易見性，KSR
是專利從業人員必讀的判決文之一。
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (Basic framework of an 103 analysis)
"Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved." 383 U.S. at 17.Graham案的內容迄今仍是非顯而易見性判斷的基本架構，同樣是專利從業人員關於顯而易見性必讀的判決文之一。
Important Concepts
No presumption of full consideration by the PTO:
"Congress, however, has now rejected this presumption of full consideration. Section 303(a) as amended instead requires a more context-specific approach that is based on an analysis of what the PTO actually did." In re Swanson, 540 F. 3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
美國專利法303條與單方重審 (ex parte reexamination) 相關。該條重點之一，是規定要進行單方重審，必須有 "可專利性的實質新問題 (substantial new question of patentability)"。
在2002年以前，如果一個前案在專利申請的過程中，已經被引用過，USPTO會推定審查委員當時已經完整考量過該前案，即 "完整考量推定 (presumption of full consideration)"，因此很難用相同的前案，說服USPTO系爭專利有 "可專利性的實質新問題"。
2002年時，美國國會修改了303條，加上一句： " The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office"。從修法條文很明顯可看出，立法者的意思是讓 "完整考量推定" 不復存在。
In re Swanson案的重點之一，就是確認了 "完整考量推定" 因2002年的修法而不復存在。這個立法者的意思一致。In re Swanson案的另外一個重點，是確認即使之前法院認定專利有效，相同的前案PTO也可以認定專利無效，沒有憲法問題。這個觀念對爭議管理而言相當重要。
在2002年以前，如果一個前案在專利申請的過程中，已經被引用過，USPTO會推定審查委員當時已經完整考量過該前案，即 "完整考量推定 (presumption of full consideration)"，因此很難用相同的前案，說服USPTO系爭專利有 "可專利性的實質新問題"。
2002年時，美國國會修改了303條，加上一句： " The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office"。從修法條文很明顯可看出，立法者的意思是讓 "完整考量推定" 不復存在。
In re Swanson案的重點之一，就是確認了 "完整考量推定" 因2002年的修法而不復存在。這個立法者的意思一致。In re Swanson案的另外一個重點，是確認即使之前法院認定專利有效，相同的前案PTO也可以認定專利無效，沒有憲法問題。這個觀念對爭議管理而言相當重要。
Obviousness is fact-dependent:
"The determination of obviousness is dependent on the facts of each case." Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2008).這背後的意思，是顯而易見性須依個案的不同事實進行判斷，很難有一個通案適用的客觀規則。也因此顯而易見性的判斷，不確定性的風險較高。
Teaching of all limitations is not necessary:
"A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason why one of skill in the art would modify the prior art to obtain the claimed invention." Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
這個通常是難在要提出 "some reason"。
Expert testimony is not necessary:"In many patent cases expert testimony will not be necessary because the technology will be easily understandable without the need for expert explanatory testimony." Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoU-SA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed Cir. 2009).話雖然是這樣說，在討論非顯而易見性時，實務上通常還是會提出專家證詞作為書面證據。至少我沒看過哪個美國律師真的敢不提的。(不過話又說回來，如果只想降低成本，那就別提，拚看看吧......。)
Objective indicia must be considered
"Objective indicia of nonobviousness must be considered in every case where present." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 839 F. 3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016).關於這個案子，請看先前我的評論。我個人不覺得objective indicia of nonobviousness是每個案子都要考量，不過既然法院這樣講，照做就是。
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。