美國案例研析（七之六）

108年7月號道法法訊 (327)		DEEP & FAR
美國案例研析（七之六）	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

案例七之六：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) 1.2.6 結論(Disposition) Affirmed. 1.2.7 協同意見及不同意見(Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:) (1) 協同意見：針對BRI解釋標準的部分，法院避免了憲法上疑慮。因為法律既然已授權USPTO制定IPR程序的規則，只要其制定的規則是合理的，而非恣意、任意、濫用裁量、或其他違背法律的就可以成立。¹ (2) 不同意見：針對PTAB決定進行IPR審理的部分，不同意見的法官不認為國會有意保護UPSTO，使PTAB進行IPR審理的決定不受司法監督。相反的，與支持司法複審的基本假設一致，國會只要求PTAB進行IPR審理的決定在上訴時接受審查。[1]［也就是說程序中不得抗議，上訴時再抗議］ 1.3 總結 1.3.1 本案例小結本案的重點在(1) 美國專利法314條(d)款（35 U.S.C. § 314(d)）規定，明確禁止法院就PTAB是否進行IPR複審之決定進行審查，除非是涉及諸如違反正當法律程序之違憲問題，或USPTO 踰越其法定職權等，法院才有權予以審查；(2) USPTO頒布規定指示PTAB在IPR複審中採用BRI原則來解釋專利請求項文字用語，符合美國國會透過專利法316條(a)款(4)項（35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4)）賦予USPTO制定PTAB複審程序規則之權限。註1：Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2148 (2016). (The Court avoids those constitutional concerns today because the provision of the America Invents Act at issue contains an express and clear conferral of authority to the Patent Office to promulgate rules governing its own proceedings. And by asking whether the Patent Office’s preferred rule is reasonable, the Court effectively asks whether the rulemaking was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full.) 註2：Id. at 2148-49. (Congress has given the Patent and Trademark Office considerable authority to review and cancel issued patent claims. At the same time, Congress has cabined that power by imposing significant conditions on the Patent Office’s institution of patent review proceedings. Unlike the Court, I do not think that Congress intended to shield the Patent Office’s compliance—or noncompliance—with these limits from all judicial scrutiny. Rather, consistent with the strong presumption favoring judicial review, Congress required only that judicial review, including of issues bearing on the institution of patent review proceedings, be channeled through an appeal from the agency’s final decision. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s contrary holding.)

[1] Id. at 2148-49. (Congress has given the Patent and Trademark Office considerable authority to review and cancel issued patent claims. At the same time, Congress has cabined that power by imposing significant conditions on the Patent Office’s institution of patent review proceedings. Unlike the Court, I do not think that Congress intended to shield the Patent Office’s compliance—or noncompliance—with these limits from all judicial scrutiny. Rather, consistent with the strong presumption favoring judicial review, Congress required only that judicial review, including of issues bearing on the institution of patent review proceedings, be channeled through an appeal from the agency’s final decision. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s contrary holding.)