只有專利權(quán)人的起訴才可觸發(fā)35 U.S.C. § 315(b)時效限制

#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：Andrew McElligott 律師 及Douglas A. Oguss律師
供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所
原標題：只有專利權(quán)人的起訴才可觸發(fā)35 U.S.C. § 315(b)時效限制

本文案件中，專利審判和上訴委員會明確了只有具有訴訟資格的專利權(quán)人遞交和送達的起訴狀，才可在多方復審程序中觸發(fā)適用§ 315(b) 條款規(guī)定的一年時效限制。

2019年1月31日，專利審判和上訴委員會在Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01331一案中裁決認為：只有專利權(quán)人的起訴狀才可觸發(fā)35 U.S.C. § 315(b) 條款下規(guī)定的一年時效限制。

美國專利法35 U.S.C. § 315(b)條款規(guī)定：如果多方復審程序（inter partes review ，IPR）的請愿書是在請愿人、實質(zhì)利益關(guān)系人或與請愿人有利益關(guān)系之人，收到“專利侵權(quán)起訴狀”之日起超過1年后提出的，則不可授予啟動IPR。本案中，請愿人Sling TV等在2017年6月6日收到由Realtime Data送達的起訴狀，但直至2018年7月3日請愿人才提交IPR請愿，超過收到起訴狀一年的時間。

據(jù)此，專利權(quán)人Realtime Adaptive Streaming爭辯認為Sling TV的請愿書受§ 315(b)的時效限制。PTAB依據(jù)事實駁回了專利權(quán)人的爭辯理由，因為Realtime Data （并非專利權(quán)人Realtime Adaptive Streaming）于2017年6月6日遞交起訴書。而在發(fā)起訴訟的三個月前，Realtime Data記錄了一份向Realtime Adaptive Streaming的權(quán)利轉(zhuǎn)讓（Assignment）。因此在發(fā)起訴訟后，鑒于該轉(zhuǎn)讓Realtime Data自愿撤訴但保留再訴權(quán)利，隨后Realtime Adaptive Streaming于2017年10月10日提交新的起訴狀。PTAB認為2017年10月10日是用于衡量適用§ 315(b)時效限制的正確日期。

在得出結(jié)論時， PTAB認為“即便法律條文沒有明確誰必須提交并送達起訴狀，§ 315(b)的標題為‘專利權(quán)人的訴訟’，因此這意味著只有收到專利權(quán)人的起訴狀通知才可觸發(fā)一年時效限制。”PTAB進一步依據(jù)了立法史（legislative history）論證了“國會設(shè)想只有專利權(quán)人的起訴狀才可觸發(fā)時效限制?！?/p>

PTAB還駁回了Realtime Adaptive Streaming依賴聯(lián)邦巡回法院在Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.案中所作的裁決。PTAB解釋認為“Click-to-Call案中確立了原告后來的自愿撤訴行為不影響一年時效限制（即便原告自愿撤訴但仍可觸發(fā)時效限制規(guī)定，被告可能無法在收到起訴狀之日起的一年后對同一原告的專利提出IPR）”但Click-to-Call案并未解釋“不具訴訟資格（without standing）的當事人所提交的起訴狀是否可觸發(fā)§ 315(b) 的時效限制。”

PTAB現(xiàn)在通過Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC明確了訴訟資格是觸發(fā)時效限制的必須要求。

附：英文全文

Only a Patent Owner’s Action Triggers § 315(b)’s Time Bar

On January 31, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a decision in Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01331, Paper 9 (PTAB January 31, 2019), holding that only a patent owner’s complaint will trigger the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

Section 315(b) states that an inter partes review (“IPR”) “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.”  Here, the petitioners (Sling TV, et al.) were served with a complaint on June 6, 2017, from Realtime Data, but did not file an IPR petition until July 3, 2018, more than one year after being served.  Accordingly, the patent owner (Realtime Adaptive Streaming) argued that Sling TV’s petition was time barred under § 315(b).  The PTAB rejected this argument in light of the fact that Realtime Data (not Realtime Adaptive Streaming, who owned the patent) had filed the complaint on June 6, 2017.  Realtime Data had recorded an assignment to Realtime Adaptive Streaming three months before filing suit. As a result, after filing the complaint, and in view of the assignment, Realtime Data voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice, and Realtime Adaptive Streaming then filed a new complaint on October 10, 2017.  The PTAB held that the October 10, 2017 date was the correct date from which to measure the § 315(b) time bar.

In reaching its conclusion, the PTAB reasoned that, “[a]lthough the statute’s text is not explicit as to who must file and serve the complaint, § 315(b) is titled ‘Patent Owner’s Action,’ thus suggesting that only service of a patent owner’s complaint triggers the one-year time bar.” The PTAB further relied on legislative history purportedly demonstrating that “Congress envisioned that only a patent owner’s complaint would trigger the time bar.”

The PTAB also rejected Realtime Adaptive Streaming’s reliance on the Federal Circuit’s holding in Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc). As the PTAB explained, “Click-to-Call established that a complaint’s later dismissal has no bearing on the one-year time bar” but Click-to-Call  did not address “whether a complaint filed without standing triggers § 315(b)’s time bar.”

As the PTAB now makes clear in Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, standing is required to trigger the time bar.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Andrew McElligott 律師 及Douglas A. Oguss律師
供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所
編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

“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IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)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/”