如何避免破壞專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈？

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Rashad Morgan律師 及Christopher Gerardot律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：Natural Alternatives v. Iancu：不要破壞專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈

本文案件中，由于申請人在專利鏈中放棄了其中一項部分連續(xù)申請案對母專利的優(yōu)先權(quán)（priority claims），導(dǎo)致下游子專利的優(yōu)先權(quán)受到影響而無法獲得母專利的有效申請日（effective filing date）。文章對申請人在處理大型專利族中包含眾多權(quán)利要求的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求時，如何避免破壞優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈提供了若干實際操作建議。

聯(lián)邦巡回法院近期裁決的一項案件，對于那些處理大型專利族（patent families）中包含眾多權(quán)利要求優(yōu)先權(quán)（priority claims）問題的申請人來說，起到了提示謹(jǐn)慎處理的作用。

                                                                      
案件背景：本案Natural Alternatives v. Iancu

是一件對雙方復(fù)審程序（inter partes reexamination）進(jìn)行上訴的案件。本案的爭議問題是：在專利鏈中，當(dāng)申請人對之前相關(guān)專利申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)進(jìn)行修改，后續(xù)遞交的子申請（child application）是否有資格對專利鏈中最早的有效申請日（the earliest effective filing date）享有優(yōu)先權(quán)。本案爭議專利為美國專利8,067,381（381專利），是美國專利族申請中的最后一項申請（圖中8號申請），該申請請求對專利鏈中母專利（parent patent）的原始申請日享有優(yōu)先權(quán)，既1997年8月12日遞交的1號申請。

拓展：專利的申請日（filing date）與有效申請日（effective filing date）

通常，專利的保護(hù)期限是從其遞交申請之日（filing date）開始計算的二十年內(nèi)；但一些類型的專利申請，如分割案（ division ）、連續(xù)案（ continuation ）與部分連續(xù)案（ continuation in part, CIP）等，由于其和母專利（parent patent）間的聯(lián)系使它們的申請日并非實際遞交日，而是可享有母案原始申請日的優(yōu)先權(quán)，統(tǒng)稱為有效申請日（effective filing date），或“優(yōu)先權(quán)日（priority date）”。值得注意，有效申請日是根據(jù)各權(quán)利要求為基礎(chǔ)（claim-by-claim basis）逐個進(jìn)行評估的。

如圖所示，專利鏈由原告Natural Alternatives International (“NAI”)遞交的母案申請開始，該申請涉及一種增加運動員耐力的膳食補(bǔ)充劑。在1997至2011年間，NAI遞交了至少7項類似主題的申請，每一項申請中均包含了優(yōu)先權(quán)聲明（priority statement），請求通過專利鏈享有對1997年母案申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)。本案的381專利，由申請鏈中的第8號申請所核準(zhǔn)。

專利鏈中的5號申請含有新的技術(shù)信息（new matter），最初以“部分連續(xù)案（continuation-in-part，CIP）”提出對1號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求。5號申請還分別對2003年的一項臨時申請（provisional application）案提出優(yōu)先權(quán)。在隨后的6號申請待審期間，申請人對5號申請進(jìn)行修改，移除了對專利鏈中前4項申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求，然而維持了對臨時申請案的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求，推測是為了延長5號申請的專利期限。6號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求沒有變動。此外，所有隨后的申請中均包含了對1號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求，一直追溯至1997年的最初申請日。

在復(fù)審程序中，NAI辯稱“381專利應(yīng)享有1997年作為有效申請日”。審查員未采納該請求，并最終基于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)（prior art）駁回381專利的權(quán)利要求。專利審判和上訴委員會支持駁回意見。NAI將裁決上訴至聯(lián)邦巡回法院。

NAI在聯(lián)邦巡回法院中的論點總結(jié)為以下四部分：

1.專利鏈中第6號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求被授予（因此為第8號申請中的專利提供以1997年作為優(yōu)先權(quán)日的路徑）

2.對優(yōu)先權(quán)的放棄只限制于本申請（5號申請），并不延伸至專利鏈中的后續(xù)申請。

3.專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈不是單一的增長鏈，而是一組多項固定鏈 （如，一項優(yōu)先權(quán)對應(yīng)每一項申請）

4.將專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈視為單一的增長鏈，當(dāng)申請人為延長專利期限對優(yōu)先權(quán)進(jìn)行修改時，限制了其可尋求獲得保護(hù)的能力。

對于NAI的第一部分論點，聯(lián)邦巡回法院認(rèn)為其混淆了“請求優(yōu)先權(quán)（claiming priority）”與“享有優(yōu)先權(quán)（entitlement to priority）”。法院指出證明優(yōu)先權(quán)的責(zé)任在申請人或?qū)＠麢?quán)人，即便存在適當(dāng)?shù)膬?yōu)先權(quán)，也不能認(rèn)為既可享有優(yōu)先權(quán)。法院隨后引用判例法，指出對優(yōu)先權(quán)的修改可影響專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈中下游的申請?！耙驗榈?號申請缺失1號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)，第8號申請對1號申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)請求（通過第5號申請）不能滿足§ 120的所有要求。”

其次關(guān)于第二部分論點，NAI認(rèn)為對優(yōu)先權(quán)的放棄只限制于本申請（5號申請）。這一論點是基于NAI對專利審查指南（MPEP）§ 201.11的解讀，其中NAI找到“對優(yōu)先權(quán)的修改只適用于本申請 -  非其他申請?！狈ㄔ捍_認(rèn)MPEP不具有法律效力，并且沒有在MPEP發(fā)現(xiàn)優(yōu)先權(quán)棄權(quán)（waiver of priority）僅限制于本申請，還指出MPEP明確表示某些行為可影響下游申請（如終止聲明）。

聯(lián)邦巡回法院以上述相似的理由駁回了最后兩個論點。

本案裁決同樣為遞交部分連續(xù)申請案（CIP）的從業(yè)人員提供關(guān)于有效申請日的提醒：在CIP申請中，雖然權(quán)利要求的有效申請日是根據(jù)逐個權(quán)利要求（claim-by-claim）的主題，基于母專利最早相關(guān)的遞交日決定，但整個CIP申請的專利期限（所有權(quán)利要求）取決于最早的母專利優(yōu)先權(quán)日期。換句話說，即使CIP中的某些權(quán)利要求有不一樣的優(yōu)先權(quán)日，但整個CIP專利中的所有權(quán)利要求會同時到期。因此，引入新主題后較早到期的權(quán)利要求使CIP專利整體期限縮短。CIP申請雖然可以放棄早先（母案）的優(yōu)先權(quán)日以確保20年的完整專利期限，但這樣的棄權(quán)聲明卻為申請遭遇更多現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的挑戰(zhàn)埋下隱患。

啟示：

1. 申請人在修改專利鏈中的相關(guān)申請時應(yīng)格外謹(jǐn)慎。在極少的情況下，取消優(yōu)先權(quán)具有策略性意義（注意上游申請可成為現(xiàn)有技術(shù)），申請人應(yīng)意識到這樣的棄權(quán)不僅作用于現(xiàn)有申請，也可能對后續(xù)申請造成專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈的破壞。

而且，應(yīng)通過相關(guān)申請對優(yōu)先權(quán)進(jìn)行仔細(xì)監(jiān)控，無論是申請信息頁（Application Data Sheet）還是說明書中的第一段落。專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈的破壞不僅對現(xiàn)有申請的優(yōu)先權(quán)造成影響，對下游子申請也會產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重打擊。

2. 在遞交CIP申請時，也可同時遞交來自相同母專利的共同待審連續(xù)申請（co-pending continuation from the immediate parent）。那么，如果申請人希望在日后放棄CIP中的優(yōu)先權(quán)（如，為引入新主題的專利延長保護(hù)期限），共同待審連續(xù)申請將會為申請?zhí)峁┎婚g斷的專利優(yōu)先權(quán)鏈。

附：英文全文

Natural Alternatives v. Iancu - Priority: Don’t Break the Chain

A recent Federal Circuit decision serves as a reminder to exercise caution when dealing with large patent families with many priority claims.

Background: Natural Alternatives v. Iancu[1] involved an appeal from an inter partes reexamination. At issue in Natural Alternatives was whether a later-filed child application was entitled to priority to the earliest effective filing date when there was a modification to the priority claim by an Applicant in a previous related application.  The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 (“the ‘381 patent”), was the last application in a family of U.S. applications claiming priority to the original filing date of the parent, which was filed August 12, 1997.

As shown in this diagram, the chain began when Natural Alternatives International (“NAI”) filed the parent application[2] related to a dietary supplement for increasing an athlete’s endurance. Between 1997 and 2011, NAI filed at least seven more applications with similar subject matter, each of them including a benefit priority statement (at least initially) claiming priority through the chain to the 1997 parent. The patent at issue, the ‘381 patent, issued from the eighth application in the chain.

The fifth application in the chain[3], which included new matter, initially claimed priority to the filing date of the first application (via the fourth application) as a continuation-in-part (“CIP”). The fifth application separately claimed the benefit a 2003 provisional application. During the pendency of the subsequent sixth application, the fifth application was amended to remove the priority claim to the first four applications, while maintaining the priority claim to the provisional application, presumably to extend the patent term of the fifth application. The priority claim of the sixth application was not amended. In addition, all of the subsequent applications included priority claims extending all the way back to the 1997 filing date of the first application.

During the reexamination proceedings, NAI argued that the ‘381 patent should have a 1997 effective filing date. The reexamination examiner was not persuaded, and the claims of the ‘381 patent were finally rejected based on prior art (which included the patent issuing from NAI’s original 1997 filing). In the subsequent proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a determination affirming the examiner’s rejections. NAI filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit.

NAI’s argument before the Federal Circuit included four parts:

1.The sixth application’s priority “vested” (thus providing a path to 1997 for the eighth patent

2.Waiver of priority is limited to the instant  application and does not extend to subsequent applications in the chain.

3.The priority chain is not a single growing chain, but rather a set of multiple fixed chains (i.e., one for each application).

4.Viewing a priority chain as a single growing chain “l(fā)imits an applicant’s ability to seek protection” when “amending [a] priority claim to gain [patent] term.”

The Federal Circuit found that the “vesting argument” confused claiming priority with entitlement to priority. The court recognized that the burden is on an applicant or patentee to prove priority, and that entitlement to priority is not assumed even where a proper priority claim exists.  The court then cited prior Federal Circuit decisions (and consistent MPEP language) recognizing that the modification of a priority claim can affect downstream applications in a priority chain. “[B]ecause the fifth application lacked priority to the first application, the eighth application's priority claim to the first application (via the fifth application) did not satisfy all of § 120's requirements.”[4]

Next, the court rejected NAI’s argument that a cancellation of a priority claim waives priority only in the instant application. The argument was based on NAI’s reading of MPEP § 201.11[5], which NAI found that an alteration of a priority claim applies “only to the instant application – not other, ... applications.”[6] The court, while acknowledging that the MPEP “does not have the force of the law,” found nothing in the MPEP that limits waiver of priority to only the instant application and noted the MPEP has explicitly indicated when certain actions affect downstream applications (for example, terminal disclaimers).[7]

The Federal Circuit summarily rejected the final two arguments on grounds similar to those discussed above.

The opinion also serves as a reminder to practitioners about the effective filing date for CIP applications: while the effective filing date for claims in a CIP application are based on the earliest filing of the claimed subject matter (determined claim-by-claim), the patent term for the entire application (all claims) is based on the earliest claimed priority.[8] In other words, all claims in a CIP application expire at the same time even though certain claims may have different priority dates. As a result, claims reciting new matter have a truncated patent term. While it is permissible to disclaim the benefit of an earlier date to secure a full 20-year term, such a disclaimer opens up the application to a larger pool of prior art.

Takeaways:

1. Applicants should be wary of modifying priority claims in related applications. In the rare circumstance where it makes strategic sense to cancel a priority claim (with knowledge that the upstream applications could end up as prior art), an applicant should be aware that such a disclaimer may break the priority chain not just for the instant application but also for later-filed applications in the chain.

Further, claims to priority should be carefully monitored through related applications, whether in an Application Data Sheet, the first paragraph of the specification, or both. A broken priority chain not only affects the priority of the instant application, but can be fatal to downstream child applications.

2. When filing a CIP application, it may be advisable to also file a co-pending continuation stemming from the immediate parent. Then, if the applicant wishes to disclaim priority in the CIP at a later date (i.e., to extend the patent term of new matter), the co-pending continuation will provide the application with an application with an unbroken chain of priority.

[1] Natural Alternatives v. Iancu, __ F.3d __, No 2017-1962 slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2018).

[2] The 1997 patent application (Ser. No. 08/909,513) claims priority to two UK filings (9621914.2 and 9616910.7)

[3] U.S. Application No. 12/231,240, filed on August 29, 2008.

[4] Natural Alternatives, slip Op. at 10.

[5] The relevant subject matter now exists in MPEP § 11.

[6] Natural Alternatives, slip Op. at 10.

[7] Id. at 10-11.

[8] Id. at 11 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2)).

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Rashad Morgan律師 及Christopher Gerardot律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀（點擊圖文，閱讀全文）

官宣！2018全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)生態(tài)大會（GIPC）即將來襲！

IP生態(tài)新格局！「G40亞太知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)袖閉門峰會」震撼來襲！

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)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(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)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(wù)所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)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(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://islanderfriend.com/”