美國案例研析（七之五）

108年6月號道法法訊 (326)		DEEP & FAR
美國案例研析（七之五）	蔡馭理專利師 ‧臺灣大學電機學士 ‧臺灣大學電信工程研究所碩士 ‧美國新罕布什大學法律學院智權法碩士 ‧交通大學科技法律研究所 ‧美國專利代理人考試及格 ‧大陸專利代理人

案例七之五：Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) 1. Patent: 多方複審程序Inter Partes Review 1.2 案例解析：Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) 1.2.5 理由(Rationale) (2) 法院認為根據Chevron deference法則，當法律不明確時，法院通常將之解釋為立法機關授權行政機關根據立法目的自行規定行政規則。¹其中，Chevron deference的意義為如果國會明確地授權行政機關填補一個法律漏洞，那就是明確的代表行政機關有權透過制定規則來闡明特定的法律規定。此種立法性規定具被賦與效力，除非它門是恣意的(arbitrary)、任意的(capricious)、或顯然違背法律(manifestly contrary to the statute)。Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2782 (1984)。 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(4)授與USPTO自行制定IPR規定，且法律並未明確限制申請專利範圍的解釋方式。² Cuozzo雖然爭辯IPR進行模式如同法院，因此應該採用普通意義標準(ordinary meaning standard )解釋申請專利範圍，但是法院認為Cuozzo 忽略了IPR 更像一個專業行政機關。 IPR的目的不僅在解決爭端，更在審查專利的有效性以維護公眾利益，所以應該採BRI標準。³ 此外，37 CFR § 42.100(b)規定BRI的目的在防止申請專利範圍的範圍過大或不明確，讓公眾可以確定申請專利的範圍，而且已經是USPTO使用了100多年的標準，此標準是合理的。⁴ 註1：Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2135 (2016). (Where a statute leaves a gap or is ambiguous, this Court typically interprets a congressional grant of rulemaking authority as giving the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute.) 註2：Id. at 2135. (Here, the statute grants the Patent Office the authority to issue regulations “governing inter partes review,” and no statutory provision unambiguously mandates a particular claim construction standard) 註3：Id. (Cuozzo’s contention that the purpose of inter partes review--to establish trial-like procedures for reviewing previously issued patents--supports the application of the ordinary meaning standard ignores the fact that in other significant respects, inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding. This indicates that Congress designed a hybrid proceeding. The purpose of inter partes review is not only to resolve patent-related disputes among parties, but also to protect the public’s “paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies .are kept within their legitimate scope.”) 註4：Id. (The regulation is a reasonable exercise of the Patent Office's rulemaking authority. The broadest reasonable construction standard helps ensure precision in drafting claims and prevents a patent from tying up too much knowledge, which, in turn, helps members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and understand the lawful limits of the claim. The Patent Office has used this standard for more than 100 years and has applied it in proceedings which, as here, resemble district court litigation)