專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則不適用于多方復(fù)審程序

#本文僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura Beth Miller律師 及Sarah Goodman律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則不適用于多方復(fù)審程序

本文案件中，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院裁決認(rèn)為“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則（doctrine of assignor estoppel）”不可適用于多方復(fù)審程序，因?yàn)閲?guó)會(huì)在35 U.S.C. § 311(a) 中明確表達(dá)任何非專(zhuān)利所有人均可遞交IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)浮＿@意味著通過(guò)雇員轉(zhuǎn)讓其發(fā)明而獲得專(zhuān)利所有權(quán)的雇主，仍然面臨著可能受到來(lái)自專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人或其利益相關(guān)人在未來(lái)發(fā)起IPR攻擊的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

不久之前，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院就以下問(wèn)題進(jìn)行考量并作出裁決：專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則（doctrine of assignor estoppel）是否可適用于多方復(fù)審（inter partes review， IPR）。法院認(rèn)為該原則不可適用，因?yàn)?5 U.S.C. § 311(a)明確的表達(dá)了國(guó)會(huì)的意圖，既任何非專(zhuān)利所有人均可遞交IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)浮?br/>

案件背景

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 涉案的597專(zhuān)利涉及保護(hù)計(jì)算機(jī)網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備免受外部攻擊的技術(shù)。597專(zhuān)利的發(fā)明人在發(fā)明期間，曾作為員工就職于Cisco Systems, Inc.。發(fā)明人將這項(xiàng)發(fā)明的專(zhuān)利權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓給Cisco并保證將幫助獲得并執(zhí)行該專(zhuān)利。發(fā)明人隨后從Cisco離職并與他人共同創(chuàng)立Arista Networks, Inc.

此后，Arista對(duì)597專(zhuān)利的若干權(quán)利要求遞交IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)?。在PTAB的最終書(shū)面裁決中，受挑戰(zhàn)的權(quán)利要求中僅有部分被無(wú)效。Arista對(duì)沒(méi)有被無(wú)效的權(quán)利要求裁決進(jìn)行上訴。Cisco交叉上訴裁決中被無(wú)效的權(quán)利要求，并稱(chēng)PTAB錯(cuò)誤的沒(méi)有適用“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則”，以阻止Arista在最初對(duì)專(zhuān)利的有效性進(jìn)行挑戰(zhàn)。

專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔的相關(guān)問(wèn)題

“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則”起源于英美法系，該原則禁止專(zhuān)利的轉(zhuǎn)讓人或其利益相關(guān)人（privity），如轉(zhuǎn)讓人所設(shè)立的公司，在隨后對(duì)其所轉(zhuǎn)讓專(zhuān)利的有效性進(jìn)行挑戰(zhàn)。這一原則得到美國(guó)最高法院的承認(rèn)。該原則同時(shí)也被ITC程序所采納適用。在本案相關(guān)的ITC調(diào)查中，委員會(huì)認(rèn)為“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔”阻止了Arista對(duì)Cisco專(zhuān)利有效性的挑戰(zhàn)。

上訴中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院首先對(duì)PTAB認(rèn)為不適用“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則”這一裁決是否具有復(fù)審性（reviewable）進(jìn)行評(píng)估。法院認(rèn)為是可進(jìn)行復(fù)審的，因?yàn)檫@一裁決與PTAB局長(zhǎng)作出的初步可專(zhuān)利性評(píng)估沒(méi)有緊密聯(lián)系，也與即便達(dá)到可專(zhuān)利性評(píng)估的門(mén)檻但局長(zhǎng)決定不啟動(dòng)復(fù)審沒(méi)有聯(lián)系。

隨后法院對(duì)該原則是否可適用（applicability）于IPR程序進(jìn)行考慮。PTAB提供了該原則不適用IPR程序的兩點(diǎn)原因：（1）35 U.S.C. § 311(a) 說(shuō)明了國(guó)會(huì)對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)專(zhuān)利有效性能力的廣泛授權(quán)，及（2）國(guó)會(huì)沒(méi)有明確承認(rèn)“專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人禁止反悔原則”在IPR中的適用。法院支持了以上觀點(diǎn)，總結(jié)到§ 311(a)條款的法律語(yǔ)言 – “任何非專(zhuān)利所有人均可向?qū)＠诌f交啟動(dòng)IPR的請(qǐng)?jiān)浮?”明確地表明國(guó)會(huì)沒(méi)有意向在IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)钢信懦龑?zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人。

法院意識(shí)到這一裁決可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致挑選法院（forum shopping）的情況出現(xiàn)，但總結(jié)認(rèn)為這一裁決與IPR的目標(biāo)一致。本裁決還解決了先前法院在裁定可復(fù)審性問(wèn)題中潛在不一致的問(wèn)題。比較Husky Inj. Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d. 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 與 Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

啟示

本案對(duì)公司中有雇員向雇主轉(zhuǎn)讓其發(fā)明的情況具有重要意義。即便專(zhuān)利所有人可在地區(qū)法院阻止專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人進(jìn)行的有效性挑戰(zhàn)，專(zhuān)利所有人仍可能受到來(lái)自專(zhuān)利轉(zhuǎn)讓人或其利益相關(guān)人發(fā)起的IPR攻擊。一個(gè)開(kāi)放性的問(wèn)題有待繼續(xù)考察，既這樣的情況可否通過(guò)簽訂合同條款來(lái)避免，其中特別指出雇員將放棄在隨后訴訟中對(duì)專(zhuān)利有效性進(jìn)行挑戰(zhàn)的權(quán)利。

附：英文全文

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in an Inter Partes Review Proceeding

On November 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel should apply in the context of an inter partes review.  The Court concluded that the doctrine of assignor estoppel does not apply because 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously reflects Congress’s intent that any person who is not the owner of a patent may file an inter partes review petition.

Background

The patent at issue (the ’597 patent) relates to protecting computer network devices from external attacks. The inventor of the ’597 patent was a Cisco Systems, Inc. employee at the time of the invention.  He assigned his rights to the invention to Cisco and provided assurances that he would aid in obtaining and enforcing the patent.  The inventor subsequently left Cisco and co-founded Arista Networks, Inc.

Thereafter, Arista petitioned for an inter partes review of certain claims of the ’597 patent.  In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) concluded that only some challenged claims were invalid.  Arista appealed the decision upholding certain claims as valid.  Cisco cross-appealed the decision finding certain claims invalid, and asserted that the PTAB erred by not applying the doctrine of assignor estoppel to prevent Arista from initially challenging the patent’s validity.

Assignor Estoppel Issue

The doctrine of assignor estoppel is a common law principle that bars the assignor of a patent, or those in privity with the assignor, such as a corporation founded by the assignor, from subsequently challenging the validity of the patent.  The doctrine has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court.  See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 349 (1924).  The doctrine also has been applied in the context of ITC proceedings.  In a related ITC investigation, the Commission held that assignor estoppel barred Arista’s challenge to Cisco’s patent validity.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first evaluated whether the PTAB’s decision not to apply assignor estoppel was reviewable.  The Court concluded that it could review this decision because the issue was not closely related to the PTAB Director’s preliminary patentability assessment or the Director’s discretion not to institute even if the threshold patentability assessment was met.

The Court then considered the applicability of the doctrine in the context of IPR proceedings.  The PTAB had provided two reasons for its determination that assignor estoppel did not apply in inter partes review proceedings, concluding that: (1) 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) demonstrates Congress’s broad grant of the ability to challenge patent validity and (2) Congress has not expressly recognized assignor estoppel in the inter partes review context.  The Court agreed, concluding that the language of § 311(a) - “a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review . . .” - unambiguously demonstrates that Congress did not intend to exclude an assignor from petitioning for inter partes review.

The Court recognized that its decision could lead to forum shopping, but concluded that the decision was consistent with the goals of inter partes review.  The decision also resolves a potential inconsistency in prior Court rulings on the issue of reviewability.  Compare Husky Inj. Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d. 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) with Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc).

Implications

This case may be significant for companies with employees who assign inventions to their employer. Even though a patent owner could potentially block a validity challenge from an assignor in district court, the patent owner may still be vulnerable to an inter partes review petition by the assignor or those in privity with an assignor.  An open question remains as to whether this scenario could be avoided through contractual provisions that specifically waive the right to challenge validity in subsequent proceedings.  

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura Beth Miller律師 及Sarah Goodman律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

“投稿”請(qǐng)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(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶(hù)匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)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(wàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶(hù)（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬(wàn)+海外30萬(wàn)）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬(wàn)條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專(zhuān)利資源，通過(guò)媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)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(lái)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(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://islanderfriend.com/”