PTAB就同一當(dāng)事人提出的合并動(dòng)議交由判例意見小組進(jìn)行復(fù)審

#本文僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律師 及David Lindner律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：PTAB就同一當(dāng)事人提出的合并動(dòng)議交由判例意見小組進(jìn)行復(fù)審

在多方復(fù)審程序中，如請(qǐng)?jiān)溉讼群筮f交兩份請(qǐng)?jiān)?，其中涉及相關(guān)聯(lián)專利或權(quán)利要求，作為同一當(dāng)事人可否請(qǐng)求合并兩份請(qǐng)?jiān)讣凹尤胂惹八f交的請(qǐng)?jiān)?？這一問題在PTAB的判例歷史中出現(xiàn)了相互矛盾的兩項(xiàng)裁決。PTAB就此召集判例意見小組，將對(duì)這一問題復(fù)審及解釋所涉及的35 U.S.C §315(c)法條。

美國(guó)專利審判與上訴委員會(huì)（“委員會(huì)”）接受了近期一位請(qǐng)?jiān)溉艘蚝喜?dòng)議（a motion for joinder）和多方復(fù)審（inter partes review ，“IPR”）被駁回而請(qǐng)求進(jìn)行重審的要求，委員會(huì)召集了判例意見小組（Precedential Opinion Panel,“POP”）就所涉及的一項(xiàng)特殊問題進(jìn)行復(fù)審。

在2018年12月3日所發(fā)布的裁決中（IPR2018-00914），委員會(huì)指出對(duì)35 U.S.C §315(c) 法條的解釋在歷史中出現(xiàn)相互矛盾的現(xiàn)象，該法條涉及對(duì)多項(xiàng)IPR程序的合并（joinder with other IPR proceedings），并授予PTAB局長(zhǎng)自由裁量是否愿作為一方加入IPR程序的權(quán)利：“任何人根據(jù)§311條正確遞交了IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)?，在收到專利?quán)人根據(jù)§313條對(duì)請(qǐng)?jiān)缸鞒龅某醪交貜?fù)，或提交此類回復(fù)的時(shí)間屆滿時(shí)，局長(zhǎng)根據(jù)§314條的要求對(duì)是否批準(zhǔn)啟動(dòng)IPR作出決策?！蔽瘑T會(huì)要求POP對(duì)該法條作出解釋。

特別是，POP將對(duì)如下問題進(jìn)行復(fù)審：請(qǐng)?jiān)溉耸欠窨杀粶?zhǔn)許加入一項(xiàng)其已為當(dāng)事人的（先前）程序中；法條是否允許將新問題合并加入至現(xiàn)有程序中；35 U.S.C. § 315(b)法定時(shí)效限制對(duì)上述兩項(xiàng)問題有無(wú)約束。

法條拓展：

35 U.S.C §311 ：多方復(fù)審程序（Inter partes review）含義、范圍、遞交截止日進(jìn)行概述的法條。

35 U.S.C §313：專利權(quán)人對(duì)IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)高M(jìn)行初步回復(fù)（preliminary response to petition）所應(yīng)涵蓋的內(nèi)容及時(shí)限。

35 U.S.C §314：?jiǎn)?dòng)IPR程序的門檻要求、作出裁決的時(shí)長(zhǎng)、啟動(dòng)通知和啟動(dòng)裁決不可上訴之相關(guān)法條。

35 U.S.C. § 315(b)：法條要求IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)感柙谡?qǐng)?jiān)溉恕?shí)質(zhì)利益關(guān)系人、與請(qǐng)?jiān)溉擞欣骊P(guān)系之人收到專利侵權(quán)訴狀之日起一年內(nèi)遞交。前述規(guī)定的時(shí)效限制不適用于根據(jù)（c）條款所提出的合并（joinder）請(qǐng)求。

本次復(fù)審中POP的成員包括：Andrei Iancu - 商務(wù)部知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)部副部長(zhǎng)兼USPTO局長(zhǎng)；Drew Hirshfeld – 專利委員會(huì)成員；及Scott R. Boalick - 代理首席行政專利法官。

案件背景：

本案源于Proppant Express Investments, LLC 和 Proppant Express Solutions, LLC（請(qǐng)?jiān)溉耍┰?017年9月，遞交對(duì)Oren Technologies （專利權(quán)人）9,511,929號(hào)專利的IPR開始（IPR2017-02103）。該專利涉及一種在水力壓裂過程中輸送顆粒物質(zhì)的容器。專利權(quán)人于2017年12月作出回復(fù)并指出由于權(quán)利要求分組（claim grouping）出現(xiàn)錯(cuò)誤，導(dǎo)致只對(duì)受挑戰(zhàn)權(quán)利要求中的一個(gè)子集啟動(dòng)了復(fù)審。2018年4月，請(qǐng)?jiān)溉诉f交了第二份IPR，其中尋求：對(duì)第一份IPR中被駁回的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利要求進(jìn)行復(fù)審；及鑒于對(duì)原有請(qǐng)?jiān)笩o(wú)需遞交新證據(jù)，請(qǐng)求將第二項(xiàng)IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)概c已啟動(dòng)的第一項(xiàng)IPR進(jìn)行合并的動(dòng)議。請(qǐng)?jiān)溉宿q稱委員會(huì)在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508中認(rèn)為根據(jù)U.S.C §315(c)，同一當(dāng)事人提出的合并動(dòng)議是恰當(dāng)?shù)摹?br/>

專利權(quán)人對(duì)第二項(xiàng)IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)讣昂喜?dòng)議回復(fù)稱，請(qǐng)?jiān)溉酥皇窃噲D根據(jù)35 U.S.C §315(c)將第二份IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)缸鳛樗^的“合并問題（issue joinder）”遞交，而非根據(jù)35 U.S.C §315(d)所規(guī)定的合并程序（consolidating proceedings）遞交，以此避免請(qǐng)?jiān)溉宋茨茉谝荒陼r(shí)限內(nèi)遞交第二份IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)傅氖聦?shí)。委員會(huì)駁回了第二份IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)?，指出?qǐng)?jiān)溉恕拔茨芮诿惚M職對(duì)（第一份）請(qǐng)?jiān)高M(jìn)行糾正，這不能作為我們對(duì)啟動(dòng)裁決進(jìn)行復(fù)審的理由?！?br/>

請(qǐng)?jiān)溉艘髮?duì)委員會(huì)的決策進(jìn)行復(fù)審，認(rèn)為委員會(huì)曲解了35 U.S.C §315(c)，POP需解決在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508與SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485中相互矛盾法條的解釋。

Target案中，請(qǐng)?jiān)溉嗽谝荒攴ǘ〞r(shí)限后同樣遞交了第二份IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)?，其中包含了被第一份IPR排除在外的權(quán)利要求。第二份IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)副获g回。在一份4比3的推翻裁決中，委員會(huì)的大多數(shù)指出因?yàn)榇嬖谝恍┠：缍?，?duì)35 U.S.C §315(c) 立法歷史的回顧是有必要的?；诖耍蠖鄶?shù)總結(jié)認(rèn)為法條沒有排除同一請(qǐng)?jiān)府?dāng)事人加入（其第一份）IPR。反對(duì)意見認(rèn)為法條對(duì)此含糊不清。在SkyHawke案中，請(qǐng)?jiān)溉送瑯釉诔^一年法定時(shí)限后遞交第二份請(qǐng)?jiān)福芭c第一份請(qǐng)?jiān)傅暮喜?dòng)議。然而，在這一案件中委員會(huì)駁回了啟動(dòng)（第二份請(qǐng)?jiān)福┡c合并動(dòng)議，指出鑒于立法歷史，合并動(dòng)議只適用于（先前）程序中的非當(dāng)事人。法院隨后認(rèn)為一年時(shí)效限制適用于此。

這些矛盾的裁決為POP解決該類問題奠定基礎(chǔ)。委員會(huì)隨后要求當(dāng)事人和任何法庭之友（amicus curiae）對(duì)2018年12月28日確定的問題提供額外的簡(jiǎn)述報(bào)告，當(dāng)事人可于2019年1月14日前進(jìn)行答復(fù)。POP的決策將對(duì)當(dāng)事人在遞交IPR請(qǐng)?jiān)笗r(shí)的勤勉盡職產(chǎn)生重大影響，以確保請(qǐng)?jiān)笗婧w啟動(dòng)IPR所涉及的所有問題及依據(jù)。

附：英文全文

PTAB Same Party Joinder Goes POP!

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) has convened a Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) for review of an “exceptional issue,” accepting a recent petitioner's request for rehearing of a decision denying a motion for joinder and inter partes review (IPR) petition[FD1] [HAR2] .  In an order filed December 3, 2018 (IPR2018-00914), the Board noted historically conflicting interpretations of 35 U.S.C §315(c), which relates to joinder with other IPR proceedings, and gives the Director discretion to join as a party to that IPR “any person who properly files a petition under §311 [such] that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section §313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response” may determine if institution of the IPR is warranted under §314.  The Board thus ordered that the POP address the interpretation of the statute.  Specifically, the POP will review whether a petitioner may be joined to a proceeding in which it is already a party, whether the statute permits joinder of new issues into an existing procedure, and whether the statutory time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has any impact on these two questions.

The members of the POP for this review are Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Drew Hirshfeld, Commission for Patents, and Scott R. Boalick, Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge.

The case arises from an IPR filed in September of 2017 (IPR2017-02103) by Proppant Express Investments, LLC and Proppant Express Solutions, LLC (“Petitioner”) against Oren Technologies (“Patent Owner”) over US patent number 9,511,929.  The patent relates to containers designed for transporting particulate material involved in hydraulic fracturing.  The Patent Owner responded in December of 2017, and noted an error in claim grouping that resulted in the institution of only a subset of the challenged claims.  In April 2018, the Petitioner filed a second IPR (“Late Petition”) seeking review of the single claim that was denied in the first IPR, along with a motion to join the Late Petition with the earlier instituted IPR on the basis that no new evidence was required in view of the original petition.  The Petitioner argued that the Board had previously recognized same-party joinder as appropriate under 35 U.S.C §315(c) citing Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 at 6–17 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015).

Patent Owner responded to the Late Petition and motion for joinder by arguing that the Petitioner was merely attempting to file the second petition as an alleged “issue joinder” under 35 U.S.C §315(c) rather than consolidating proceedings under 35 U.S.C §315(d) to avoid the fact that Petitioner did not file the second petition within the one-year bar period.  The Board denied institution of the Late Petition, stating that Petitioner’s “failure to diligently seek correction of its petition is not a basis for revisiting our Institution Decision.”

Petitioner requested a rehearing of the Board’s decision, stating that the Board misinterpreted 35 U.S.C §315(c), setting the stage for the POP to resolve conflicting interpretations of the statute in, Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 at 6–17 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) with SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485 (Paper 13)(Mar. 20, 2015).

In Target, petitioners also filed a second petition after the one-year statutory bar period to introduce a claim that was excluded from an earlier proceeding.  The second petition was denied.  In a 4-3 reversing decision, the Board’s majority noted that because there is some ambiguity, a review of the legislative history of 35 U.S.C §315(c) was warranted.  Based on this review, the majority concluded that the statute did not exclude the same petitioner from joining an IPR.  The dissent disagreed arguing that the statute was unambiguous.  In SkyHawke, petitioners also filed a second petition after expiration of the one-year bar, and a motion for joinder with an earlier proceeding.  However, in this case, the Board denied institution and joinder, finding that in light of the statute’s legislative history, joinder can only occur of a person not already a party to the proceeding.  The court further noted the one-year bar applied.

The conflicting rulings have set the stage for these issues to be resolved by the POP.  The Board further ordered additional briefing from the parties and any amicus curiae briefs on the identified issues by Dec. 28, 2018, with the parties filing responses by January 14, 2019.  The POP’s decision could greatly influence a party’s diligence for filing IPR petitions, to ensure that a petition comprehensively addresses all issues and bases for institution.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律師 及David Lindner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（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+專利資源，通過媒體構(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://www.islanderfriend.com/”