The Evolving IP Landscape in the United States America Invents Act《美国发明法案》 演讲人: Erik R. Puknys 2013年2月26日

Outline 大纲 General Introduction First-Inventor-To-File System Pre-Issuance Third-Party Submission Post-Grant Review Inter Partes Review Prioritized Examination 概述 发明人先申请体系 授予前第三方提交 专利授予后审查 双方审查 优先审查

FIRST-INVENTOR-TO-FILE SYSTEM 发明人先申请体系

First-Inventor-To-File 发明人先申请原则 First-To-Invent 先发明原则 First-Inventor-To-File 发明人先申请原则 Filing Date 申请日

New Section 102(a) 新条款102(a) Significant Changes Effective filing date No geographical limitations 重大变更 有效申请日 没有地理限制

宽限期：在以下情况下，在有效申请日前一年或更短时间内所进行的披露，不构成在先技术, 如果： New Section 102(b) 新条款102(b) Grace period: Disclosure made 1 year or less before effective filing date is not prior art if: Made by inventor or another who obtained subject matter from inventor, or Subject matter was previously disclosed by inventor or another who obtained subject matter from inventor 宽限期：在以下情况下，在有效申请日前一年或更短时间内所进行的披露，不构成在先技术, 如果： 是发明人或从发明人那里取得主题的人所进行的披露, 或 主题由发明人或从发明人那里取得的主题的人进行了提前披露

Why First-Inventor-To-File v. First-To-File? 为什么发明人先申请 v. 先申请? Relief for true inventors against derivation Derivation proceedings in USPTO and district court Time limit: Imposes obligation to monitor publications or risk losing patent to a deriving “inventor” 依据源头，提供给真实发明人的救济 美国专利商标局和地区法院中的源头程序 期限：规定义务，进行监控出版物或冒着源头“发明人” 丧失专利的风险

PRE-ISSUANCE THIRD-PARTY SUBMISSIONS 授予前第三方提交

AIA Third-Party Submissions 美国发明法第三方提交 Effective date: September 16, 2012 Apply to any application filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012 USPTO Rules: published July 17, 2012 生效日：2012年9月16日 适用于2012年9月16日之前，当日或之后所提出的任何 申请 美国专利商标局规则：2012年7月17日颁布

POST-GRANT REVIEW 专利授予后审查

Post-Grant Review 专利授予后审查 Effective date: September 16, 2012 Apply to any patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA USPTO Rules: published August 14, 2012 生效日：2012年9月16日 适用于基于美国发明法下发明人先申请条款的申请所授予的 任何专利 美国专利商标局规则：2012年8月14日公布

Post-Grant Review (PGR)—Introduction 专利授予后审查 （PGR）—引言 Allows challenge within 9 months of grant Can be based on any invalidity ground Prior art Utility and patent eligibility Enablement, written description, definiteness Broader grounds than current reexam or new inter partes review 在专利授予后的9个月内允许提出异议 可以基于任何无效性理由 在先技术 实用性和专利适格性 赋能、书面描述、明确性 比当前复审或新的双方审查更广泛的理由

PGR—Conduct of Proceedings 专利授予后审查—执行程序 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board will conduct PGR May allow for discovery Protective Orders Oral hearing Provide petitioner at least one opportunity to file written comments Patentee may amend claims but cannot enlarge scope Final determination within 1 year after initiation For good cause, PTO may extend determination by 6 months Either party may appeal to the Federal Circuit 专利审理和上诉委员会将实施专利授予后审查 可能允许取证 保护令 口头审理 给予请求人至少一次的机会递交书面意见 专利权人可以修改权利要求，但不能扩大范围 在发起后一年内做出最终决定 有适当理由，专利局可能延期6个月做出决定 任何一方能向联邦巡回上诉法院提出上诉

PGR—Estoppel 专利授予后审查—禁反言 PTO: May not request or maintain proceeding on ground petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in PGR resulting in final written decision Civil action/ITC: May not assert ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during PGR resulting in final written decision “Final written decision” ≠ settlement 专利局: 不能基于请求人在导致最终书面决定的专利授予后审查中提出或者应该合理提出的理由，请求或者维持程序 民事诉讼/国际贸易委员会: 不能主张请求人在导致最终书面决定的专利授予后审查中所提出或应该合理提出的主张 “最终书面决定” ≠ 和解

PGR—Pros v. Cons 专利授予后审查 —优势 v. 劣势 Advantages Broader grounds than current reexam or new inter partes review Lower burden of proof than litigation Lower cost than litigation Final determination within 1-1½ years Disadvantages Must identify real parties in interest Estoppel effect 优势 比当前复审或新的双方审查具有更广泛的理由 比诉讼更低的举证责任 比诉讼更低的成本 1-1½ 年内做出最终裁决 劣势 必须确认真实利害关系方 禁止反言后果

INTER PARTES REVIEW 双方审查

Inter Partes Review 双方审查 Effective date: September 16, 2012 Apply to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012 USPTO Rules: published August 14, 2012 生效日：2012年9月16日 适用于2012年9月16日之前，当日或之后所授予的任何专利 美国专利商标局规则：2012年8月14日

Inter Partes Review (IPR)—Introduction 双方审查（IPR）—引言 May be filed the later of either: 9 months after grant, or If PGR instituted, then termination of PGR Based only on patents and printed publications (like current reexam) Will eventually replace inter partes reexam 可能提起，时间以以下较迟者为准: 专利授予后9个月，或者 如果发起专利授予后审查，那么，专利授予后审查终止日 仅仅基于专利和印刷出版物 （如同当前复审） 将最终代替双方复审

IPR—Conduct of Proceeding (Same as PGR) 双方审查—执行程序（同于专利授予后审查） The Board will conduct each proceeding May allow for discovery Protective Orders Oral hearing Provide petitioner at least 1 opportunity to file written comments Patentee may amend claims but cannot enlarge scope Final determination within 1 year after initiation For good cause, USPTO may extend determination by 6 months Either party may appeal to the Federal Circuit 委员会将实施程序 可能允许取证 保护令 口头审理 给予请求人至少一次的机会递交书面意见 专利权人可以修改权利要求，但不能扩大范围 在发起后的一年内做出最终决定 有适当理由，专利局可能延期6个月做出决定 任何一方能向联邦巡回上诉法院提出上诉

IPR—Estoppel 双方审查—禁反言 USPTO: May not request or maintain proceeding on ground petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR resulting in final written decision Civil action/ITC: May not assert ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR resulting in final written decision “final written decision” ≠ settlement 专利局: 不能基于请求人在导致最终书面决定的双方审查中所提出或者应该合理提出的理由，请求或者维持程序 民事诉讼/国际贸易委员会：不能主张请求人在导致最终书面决定的双方复审中所提出或者应该合理提出的主张 “最终书面决定” ≠ 和解

IPR—Pros v. Cons 双方审查—优势 v.劣势 Advantages Lower burden of proof than litigation Lower cost than litigation Final determination within 1-1½ years Disadvantages Must identify real parties in interest Estoppel effect 优势 比诉讼更低的举证责任 比诉讼更低的费用 1-1½年内做出最终裁决 劣势 必须确认真实的利害关系方 禁止反言后果

Strategy Considerations 战略考虑 Benefits & Considerations Cost (compared to district court) & Speed (~1 year) Limitations on availability/evidence/grounds (PGR vs IPR) Discovery opportunities (but limited) Decision maker (Appeal to Fed. Cir) Broadest reasonable interpretation (USPTO) versus judicial claim construction (district court) Preponderance of the Evidence (USPTO) versus Clear and Convincing (Presumption of validity in district court) 利益及考虑 成本 相较于地区法院） & 速度 （1年） 对可供性/证据/理由的限制 （授予后复审对双方复审） 取证机会 （但有限制） 决策者 （向联邦巡回法院上诉） 最广泛合理解释（专利局） 对司法权利要求解释（地区法院） 证据优先 （专利局） 对明确和确凿的 （地区法院假定有效）

Strategy Considerations 战略考虑 Beware Cost (much higher than EPO opposition) Estoppel effects Threshold for entry Requires QUICK and EARLY action 提防 成本 （大大高于欧洲专利局异议） 禁止反言效果 进入门槛 要求迅速和提早行动

PRIORIZED EXAMINATION 优先审查

Prioritized Examination 优先审查 Took effect on September 26, 2011 “Track 1” examination – goal of “final disposition” within 12 months 88% grant rate in the first four months! No more than four independent claims or 30 total claims Limit of 10,000 applications per fiscal year Petition fee: $4800 于2011年9月26日生效 “一号路径”审查 – “最终处置”的目标是在12个月内完结 前四个月的授予率是88%！ 不多于四个独立权利要求或全部30个权利请求 每财政年不超过10,000件申请 请求费: $4800

Prioritized Examination 优先审查 Procedure for prioritized examination does not apply to: international applications that have not entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371; design applications; reissue applications; provisional applications; or reexamination proceedings 优先审查程序不适用于： 在美国法典35号第371条规定下，还未进入国家阶段的国际申请； 外观设计申请； 重新颁证申请； 临时性申请；或 复审程序

Questions? 问题

Thank You 谢谢 Erik R. Puknys 柏克倪 (erik.puknys@finnegan.com/1.650.849.6644) Managing partner of the firm’s Palo Alto office Practice includes litigation (trial and appellate) and counseling in various technologies, with an emphasis on computer, communications, and medical device industries Frequently lectures on patent litigation and trade secret law Former patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the materials science and engineering areas 本事务所Palo Alto分所管理合伙人 业务范围包括：诉讼（审讯及上诉）及各科技领域（包括电脑、通讯、医疗设备）的法律谘询 经常就专利和商业秘密法发表演讲 曾担任美国专利及商标局材料科学及工程范畴的专利审查员

Disclaimer 免责声明 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the authors and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the authors or Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 本资料为公开信息，仅供教育与娱乐之目的，旨在增进对美国知识产权法的理解。本资料仅代 表作者的个人观点，并不构成对具体案件出具的法律意见。众所周知，每个案件都有其独特 的案件事实，因此不同案件的适当解决方法也各不相同。因此，本资料可能与任何特定情形 相关，也可能无关。据此，飞翰律师事务所和专家小组成员而言，对其现在或将来代理的不 同客户，其都无需就本资料中所出具的任何评论意见承担任何法律责任。本资料的呈递行为 不构成与飞翰律师事务所和专家小组成员的任何形式的律师-委托人关系。尽管作者已尽力 确保本资料的准确性，但本资料中仍可能含有错误或疏漏之处，对此作者将概不承担任何责 任。