再審查程序與民事侵權訴訟有效性爭點之判斷

斷

美國專利再審查程序分為無對造（ex parte）及有對造（inter partes）程序⁷¹⁵。 有對造之再審查程序第 3 人對每次專利權人的答辯有 30 日時間可以提出書面意 見，第 3 人與專利權人對爭點可以作充分攻防，較類似我國專利舉發舉發人與專 利權人之行政爭訟程序⁷¹⁶。有對造之再審查程序，專利權人或第 3 人對美國專利 商標局（PTO）之再審查之決定不服可以向上訴及爭議委員會（the Board of Patent

711 Id, at 1261(“(1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one involved in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior suit; (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in that action; and (4) the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding.”); Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. U.S.319 F.3d 1334(Fed.Cir. 2003);Jet.Inc. v.

Sewage Aeration Systems 223 F.3d 1360, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1854(Fed.Cir. 2000).

712 See U.S. v. Utah Const. & Min. Co.384 U.S. 394,422, 86 S.Ct. 1545,1560(1966).

713 參見沈冠伶，「智慧財產民事訴訟事件與行政爭訟事件之統合處理」，法學新論,第 8 期，頁 1-17(2009 年 3 月)。

714 關於美國法爭點效利益第 3 人擴張之當否與規範檢討，詳參黃國昌前揭註 704 文。

715 See Steven E. LipmanDarby & Darby, P.C., PATENT REEXAMINATION FUNDAMENTALS, 908 PLI/PAT 9(2007).

716 37 C.F.R. § 1.947(2012).

167

Appeals and Interferences）訴願，不服該委員會之決定，可上訴於聯邦巡迴上訴法 院 ⁷¹⁷。由於有對造之再審查程序，第 3 人或專利權人關於專利有效性之爭點可 據明確標準（clear and convincing standard）負舉證責任⁷²⁴；而專利商標局再審查程 序則並未推定專利為有效，其審查如同專利申請係依優勢證據標準（preponderance of the evidence）就主張專利不具可專利性負舉證責任為已足⁷²⁵。由於證據明確標 準（clear and convincing standard）較優勢證據標準（preponderance of the evidence）

717 35 U.S.C. §§141,315, as amended by 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, § 13106, 116 Stat. 1900 (Nov. 2, 2002); 37 C.F.R. § 1.983; USPTO Report to Congress on Inter Partes Reexamination, available at

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/reports/reexam_report.htm (last visited Oct. 21,2012) .

718 35 U.S.C.§ 315(c)(2002).不過此項規定另附有但書(This subsection does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third-party requester and the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the inter partes reexamination proceedings)。

719 美國 2011 Amendments. Pub.L. 112-29, § 6(a)修正 35 U.S.C.§ 315，其中 35 U.S.C.§ 315(c)部 分，配合專利複審制度修正禁止重複起訴如下: 35 U.S.C.§ 315 (e) Estoppel.--(1) Proceedings before the Office.--The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.(2) Civil actions and other proceedings.--The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not assert either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.

720 See M.P.E.P 2242(Ⅲ)(C)(2010) (“C. Final Holding of Invalidity or Unenforceability by the Courts.A final holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability, after all appeals, is controlling on the Office. In such cases, a substantial new question of patentability would not be present as to the claims finally held invalid or unenforceable.”).

721 M.P.E.P § 2286 IV(2010).

722 Blonder-Tongue 402 U.S.313,333(1971);Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S.

322,331(1979).

723 Supra note 721 ; Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg 849 F.2d 1422(1988).

724 Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc.807 F.2d 970,974 ,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1202,1204( Fed. Cir. 1986).

725 Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg 849 F.2d 1422, 1427(1988).

168

嚴格，則法院就同一證據以較嚴格之證據明確舉證標準審查認專利請求項為有 效，專利商標局再審查程序如依優勢證據標準（preponderance of the evidence）審 查則可能認不具可專利性⁷²⁶。但相反地，法院如已依較嚴格之證據明確舉證標準 審查認專利請求項為無效，專利商標局再審查程序係依較寬之優勢證據標準

（preponderance of the evidence）審查，自應受法院認定之拘束而認專利請求項為 無效⁷²⁷。

依上分析，有對造再審查程序終局決定於民事侵權訴訟中有爭點排除原則之 適用，法院關於專利權無效判斷之爭點，對再審查程序亦生爭點排除之效力。又 法院於不同訴訟程序關於專利有效性之判斷同有爭點排除原則之適用。是否有爭 點排除原則之適用其中關鍵所在仍在同一爭點在前一訴訟程序當事人是否有充 分且公平之攻擊防禦機會。關於專利權人對專利有效性之爭點是否有充分且公平 之攻防機會，美國法院見解舉出幾項考量因素，包括：（1）前訴法院見解是否 指出已適用正當的法律原則作成其結論（例如在進步性判斷上是否適用 Graham v.

John Deere Co.案例的原則）⁷²⁸、（2）前訴法院見解是否全部無法掌握系爭技術標 的與爭點、（3）前訴專利權人是否有非因其過失而被剝奪重要證據或證人之提 出⁷²⁹。

依美國專利法第 315 條規定，第 3 人申請有對造之再審查程序，致使專利商 標局長依同法第 313 條以有實質新問題而核發第 1 次審查意見，則該第 3 人於其 後基於 28 章第 1338 條所提起之任何民事訴訟不得就於再審查程序已提起或得提 起的任何事由，於民事訴訟中再予爭執專利之有效性。但如係第 3 人在有對造再 審查程序當時所未能使用，而其後始發現的證據，則該第 3 人仍得持以在其後之 民事訴訟中作為主張系爭專利無效之用⁷³⁰。美國專利法第 315 條有關爭點排除效 力使得第 3 人循求有對造再審查程序主張專利無效時，產生顧忌。由於專利法第 315 條爭點排除效力的意涵存有不明確問題，更使第 3 人主張有對造再審查程序 增加不確定因素。

關於美國專利第 315 條文意不明確部分，包括該條所指之其後（at a later time）

即有 2 種見解，第一種解釋係該條所指之「其後」之限制，並不排除申請人於再

726 M.P.E.P § 2286 IV(2010).

727 Id.

728 Grapraham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684(1966).

729 See Blonder-Tongue 402 U.S.313,333(1971).

730 35 U.S.C.§ 315(c)(2002).原文為 Civil action.--A third-party requester whose request for an inter partes reexamination results in an order under section 313 is estopped from asserting at a later time, in any civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the third-party requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings. This subsection does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third-party requester and the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the inter partes reexamination proceedings.

169

審查請求前，於繫屬之民事訴訟所已主張相同之專利無效事由。另一種解釋則認 申請人須於再審查程序終結前，於民事訴訟提出專利無效事由之主張並不受爭點 排除限制。美國國會在 2001 年曾考慮一修正案釐清爭點排除僅適用於有利專利 有效性判斷之再審查程序終局決定後，但並未完成立法⁷³¹。不過此仍可作為立法 意向的參考。另一有爭議之部分係美國專利法第 315 條（c）有關爭點排除效力 範圍。美國專利法第 315 條（c）有關「得提起」（could have raised）的解讀，第 一種見解係認為爭點排除效力包括申請人於再審查程序就專利有效性基於所得 提出之所有引證之所有得提起之事由，均不得於民事訴訟中再為主張；另一種見 解則認爭點排除效力僅適用於再審查程序經確認之引證所得為之主張⁷³²。美國專 利商標局就此爭點表示須依個案評估所有個別事實及情況而決定，如提出包含所 有情形之定義，並不適合，因此將可能無法考量未來發生所未曾預期之情況⁷³³。 美國專利爭點排除效力範圍尚包括民事侵權訴訟終局確定後，尚在繫屬及尚 未繫屬之再審查程序。若法院作成專利有效之終局判決，則該民事專利侵權訴訟 之被告即不能基於所已得提起或所得提起之任何事由申請或繼續再審查程序

734。因此，美國民事專利侵權訴訟爭點排除效力範圍擴大及於已繫屬中之再審查 程序，並不以尚未繫屬之再審查程序為限。