CAFC全院庭審判決：送達後撤銷的訴狀可觸發一年的多方複審期限 (Click-to-call Tech LP v. Ingenio, Inc. (Fed. Cir. August 16, 2018))

在今年一月聯邦巡迴上訴法院作出CAFC全院庭審判決，認為美國專利商標局的專利審理暨上訴委員會 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board, "PTAB") 依美國專利法第 315(b) 條拒絕開始多方複審的決定變成可上訴，以及今年四月與五月聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為負擔保義務的供應商可能是客戶的利害關係人，因而可能觸發315(b)的一年期限之後，本月聯邦巡迴上訴法院又針對送達後隨即撤銷的訴狀，是否可觸發一年的多方複審期限一事，做出全院庭審判決 (而且還罕見的是做在註腳裡)。以下整理本判決的重點，以及今年一連串相關判決對訴訟管理實務上所造成的影響。

CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. INGENIO, INC. (Fed. Cir. August 16, 2018)
之前的Wi-Fi案與Westerngeco案整理 (Fairsky Patent Memo, May 15, 2018)

之前的Wi-Fi案整理 (Fairsky Patent Memo, January 9, 2018)

案件背景


September 14, 2001: Inforocket.Com, Inc. (“Inforocket”) 在南紐約地院訴被告 Keen, Inc. (“Keen”) 侵害第5,818,836號美國專利 (" '836專利")。

March 21, 2003: Keen和Inforocket和解 (因為被告Keen收購了原告Inforocket成為其全資子公司)。

Later in 2003: Keen改名為Ingenio, Inc. (“Ingenio”)。

April 20, 2004: Ingenio對'836專利提出單方重審 (ex parte reexamination)。原本的請求項1-12被取消 (cancelled)，並加入了新的請求項22-30。

January 2008: Ingenio 被AT&T收購，並改名為Ingenio, LLC (簡稱仍為 “Ingenio”)。

April 2012: AT&T賣掉Ingenio。本案原告Click-to-call Technology LP ("CTC") 購買了 ’836專利。

May 29, 2012: CTC在西德州起訴Ingenio侵害'836專利。Ingenio嗣後又改名為YP Interactive LLC (“YP Interactive”)。

May 28, 2013: YP Interactive、YellowPages.com、Oracle Corporation、以及Oracle OTC Subsidiary LLC在美國專利商標局遞交多方複審聲請書 (petition for inter-partes review) ，主張 '836專利無效。CTC主張由於多年前YP Interactive的前身 Keen曾經被送達過訴狀，所以這個多方複審已經超過了美國專利法第315(b)條所規定的一年期限，美國專利商標局不應啟動多方複審程序。

October 28, 2014: 美國專利商標局的專利審理暨上訴委員會 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PATB) 作出最終書面決定，確認YP Interactive沒有超過一年期限，啟動了多方複審程序。


相關法令：美國專利法第315(b)條

(b)Patent Owner’s Action.—

An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent....

(藍字應作何解釋是之前的Wi-Fi案與Westerngeco案的重點。粗體紅字應作何解釋是本案的重點。)


聯邦巡迴上訴法院見解

聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，PTAB見解錯誤，此多方複審程序超過了315(b)條的一年期限，因此不應被啟動。

首先，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，法條的文字 "served with the complaint" 的意思很清楚，就是訴狀被送達的意思。這跟這個訴狀日後有沒有被主動撤銷沒有關係：

The “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning[s]” of the operative terms “served” and “complaint” support the understanding that it is wholly irrelevant to the § 315(b) inquiry whether the civil action in which the complaint was filed is later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

 (判決文第13頁)

因此，採用PTAB對 "served with the complaint" 的解釋，會對法條文字加上不存在的額外條件：

Moreover, adopting the Board’s preferred construction of the phrase “served with a complaint” in § 315(b) “would impose additional conditions not present in the statute’s text.”

 (判決文第15頁)

315(b)條的立法歷史也支持一年的期限只跟訴狀被正式送達的日期有關：

The legislative history of § 315(b) further supports the understanding that its time bar concerns only the date on which the complaint was formally served. 

(判決文第15頁)

立法歷史也顯示國會選擇送達日，而非其他期日，來觸發一年期限的原因，是訴狀的送達日是地院訴訟中基礎的通知傳達事件：

The legislative history also clarifies that Congress chose the date of service, as opposed to some other event, as the trigger for § 315(b)’s time bar because service of a complaint is the seminal notice-conferring event in a district court action. 

(判決文第16頁)

關於聲請人提出的，'836專利的請求項曾經在單方重審程序中變更過，所以已經不是原本訴狀中的 "專利" 這個主張，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，跟再發證程序不同，重審程序不是原本專利失效然後再頒發一件新的專利：

Petitioners first contend that, because the claims of the ’836 patent were materially changed during a subsequent ex parte reexamination, neither they nor any other entity was served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent more than one year before the IPR petition was filed.

* * *

Petitioners are mistaken. “Unlike reissue, reexamination does not result in the surrender of the original patent and the issuance of a new patent.” Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

(判決文第25頁)

就算專利的請求項範圍可能實質變更過，聯邦巡迴上訴法院引用判決先例表示，在沒有清楚的證據顯示重審過的系爭專利的範圍有實質變更的情況下，推定重審後的請求項是原本請求項的子集合，因此不會創設出新訴因：

Even if we were to hold that § 315(b) is ambiguous with respect to whether the term “the patent” includes reexamined patents having amended or new claims of “substantively differ[ent]” scope than the original claims, we would still reject Petitioners’ argument that the time bar does not apply here. We have held that, “in the absence of a clear showing that such a material difference in fact exists in a disputed patentable reexamination claim, it can be assumed that the reexamined claims will be a subset of the original claims and that no new cause of action will be created.” Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

(判決文第26頁)

此外，聲請人主張就算YP Interactive受到一年的期限限制，其他聲請人應該不受限制才對：

Petitioners also submit that, even if § 315(b)’s time bar applies to YP Interactive, it would not apply to YellowPages.com, Oracle Corporation, or Oracle OTC Subsidiary LLC.

(判決文第26頁)

關於這個主張，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，這些聲請人是單一一件多方複審聲請案的 "the Petitioner"。也就是說，法院在處理315(b) 的問題時，是把單一聲請案中的多個聲請人作為一個不可區別的整體來看待：

These four entities declared themselves as “the Petitioner” in their sole IPR petition, and certified that Ingenio (now YP Interactive) is a “real party in interest.” J.A. 345. In these circumstances, under current law, Petitioners are properly treated as an undifferentiated unit that filed an untimely petition.

* * *

We read section 315(b), as implemented by the existing regulation, to apply petition-by-petition, not petitioner-by-petitioner, with the collection of petitioners on a single petition treated as a unit indistinguishable from each member of that collection.

(判決文第28頁)

基於上面的單一實體說，本案由於其中一個聲請人在一年以前曾經被送達過訴狀，所以四個聲請人作為一個整體，都受到315(b) 條的一年期限限制，美國專利商標局因此不可啟動多方複審程序：

Under the unitary-entity interpretation of section 315(b) and its implementing regulation, the petition at issue here was untimely. “The petitioner” (all four petitioners considered collectively) filed the single petition more than one year after YP Interactive (operating under the name Keen), which is itself both “the petitioner” and a real party in interest, was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent. The Director was therefore barred from instituting this IPR based on this petition.

(判決文第29頁)


==================


本案的兩個重點會影響訴訟策略。首先，送達後隨即主動撤銷的訴狀會觸發315(b)的一年期限。所以被告如果在被送達訴狀後，發現原告主動撤銷了訴狀，請別高興太早，因為一年以後被告依美國專利法第315(b)條，將無法提出多方複審程序 -- 而這可能正是原告的目的。

其次，法院在處理315(b)條的一年時限問題時，所有的聲請人將會被視為一個整體看待。往後只要多個多方複審聲請人中，有一個超過了315(b)的一年期限，會導致整個聲請案無法啟動。所以若多家公司基於成本考量，想一起聲請多方複審，此問題需要事前多加注意。

這點跟之前的Wi-Fi案與Westerngeco案合在一起，會出現訴訟管理上很棘手的問題：只要多個多方複審聲請人中，有任何一個人的客戶曾經被送達過訴狀超過一年，那麼有可能該聲請人會被認為是利害關係人，造成整件多方複審聲請案無法啟動。如果專利權人是廣發專利侵權訴狀的非實施實體，那麼這種情況其實很有可能發生，不可不慎。

最後，這個案子發生了處分關係企業資產時，全資子公司 (Inforocket) 的專利賣掉後，買方竟然回頭對母公司 (Keen，後改名為Ingenio，又改名為YP Interactive) 提起專利訴訟的狀況。更慘的是母公司居然還受一年期限的拘束 (因為當年Keen就是用收購Inforocket來解決訴訟問題的)。往後處分關係企業專利資產時，此問題需要多加留意。