PTAB就同一当事人提出的合并动议交由判例意见小组进行复审

#本文仅代表作者观点，不代表IPRdaily立场#

发布：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律师 及David Lindner律师

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所

原标题：PTAB就同一当事人提出的合并动议交由判例意见小组进行复审

在多方复审程序中，如请愿人先后递交两份请愿，其中涉及相关联专利或权利要求，作为同一当事人可否请求合并两份请愿及加入先前所递交的请愿？这一问题在PTAB的判例历史中出现了相互矛盾的两项裁决。PTAB就此召集判例意见小组，将对这一问题复审及解释所涉及的35 U.S.C §315(c)法条。

美国专利审判与上诉委员会（“委员会”）接受了近期一位请愿人因合并动议（a motion for joinder）和多方复审（inter partes review ，“IPR”）被驳回而请求进行重审的要求，委员会召集了判例意见小组（Precedential Opinion Panel,“POP”）就所涉及的一项特殊问题进行复审。

在2018年12月3日所发布的裁决中（IPR2018-00914），委员会指出对35 U.S.C §315(c) 法条的解释在历史中出现相互矛盾的现象，该法条涉及对多项IPR程序的合并（joinder with other IPR proceedings），并授予PTAB局长自由裁量是否愿作为一方加入IPR程序的权利：“任何人根据§311条正确递交了IPR请愿，在收到专利权人根据§313条对请愿作出的初步回复，或提交此类回复的时间届满时，局长根据§314条的要求对是否批准启动IPR作出决策。”委员会要求POP对该法条作出解释。

特别是，POP将对如下问题进行复审：请愿人是否可被准许加入一项其已为当事人的（先前）程序中；法条是否允许将新问题合并加入至现有程序中；35 U.S.C. § 315(b)法定时效限制对上述两项问题有无约束。

法条拓展：

35 U.S.C §311 ：多方复审程序（Inter partes review）含义、范围、递交截止日进行概述的法条。

35 U.S.C §313：专利权人对IPR请愿进行初步回复（preliminary response to petition）所应涵盖的内容及时限。

35 U.S.C §314：启动IPR程序的门槛要求、作出裁决的时长、启动通知和启动裁决不可上诉之相关法条。

35 U.S.C. § 315(b)：法条要求IPR请愿需在请愿人、实质利益关系人、与请愿人有利益关系之人收到专利侵权诉状之日起一年内递交。前述规定的时效限制不适用于根据（c）条款所提出的合并（joinder）请求。

本次复审中POP的成员包括：Andrei Iancu - 商务部知识产权部副部长兼USPTO局长；Drew Hirshfeld – 专利委员会成员；及Scott R. Boalick - 代理首席行政专利法官。

案件背景：

本案源于Proppant Express Investments, LLC 和 Proppant Express Solutions, LLC（请愿人）在2017年9月，递交对Oren Technologies （专利权人）9,511,929号专利的IPR开始（IPR2017-02103）。该专利涉及一种在水力压裂过程中输送颗粒物质的容器。专利权人于2017年12月作出回复并指出由于权利要求分组（claim grouping）出现错误，导致只对受挑战权利要求中的一个子集启动了复审。2018年4月，请愿人递交了第二份IPR，其中寻求：对第一份IPR中被驳回的一项权利要求进行复审；及鉴于对原有请愿无需递交新证据，请求将第二项IPR请愿与已启动的第一项IPR进行合并的动议。请愿人辩称委员会在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508中认为根据U.S.C §315(c)，同一当事人提出的合并动议是恰当的。

专利权人对第二项IPR请愿及合并动议回复称，请愿人只是试图根据35 U.S.C §315(c)将第二份IPR请愿作为所谓的“合并问题（issue joinder）”递交，而非根据35 U.S.C §315(d)所规定的合并程序（consolidating proceedings）递交，以此避免请愿人未能在一年时限内递交第二份IPR请愿的事实。委员会驳回了第二份IPR请愿，指出请愿人“未能勤勉尽职对（第一份）请愿进行纠正，这不能作为我们对启动裁决进行复审的理由。”

请愿人要求对委员会的决策进行复审，认为委员会曲解了35 U.S.C §315(c)，POP需解决在先前判例Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. IPR2014-00508与SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485中相互矛盾法条的解释。

Target案中，请愿人在一年法定时限后同样递交了第二份IPR请愿，其中包含了被第一份IPR排除在外的权利要求。第二份IPR请愿被驳回。在一份4比3的推翻裁决中，委员会的大多数指出因为存在一些模糊界定，对35 U.S.C §315(c) 立法历史的回顾是有必要的。基于此，大多数总结认为法条没有排除同一请愿当事人加入（其第一份）IPR。反对意见认为法条对此含糊不清。在SkyHawke案中，请愿人同样在超过一年法定时限后递交第二份请愿，及与第一份请愿的合并动议。然而，在这一案件中委员会驳回了启动（第二份请愿）与合并动议，指出鉴于立法历史，合并动议只适用于（先前）程序中的非当事人。法院随后认为一年时效限制适用于此。

这些矛盾的裁决为POP解决该类问题奠定基础。委员会随后要求当事人和任何法庭之友（amicus curiae）对2018年12月28日确定的问题提供额外的简述报告，当事人可于2019年1月14日前进行答复。POP的决策将对当事人在递交IPR请愿时的勤勉尽职产生重大影响，以确保请愿书全面涵盖启动IPR所涉及的所有问题及依据。

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.

发布：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Aisha Hasan律师 及David Lindner律师

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所

编辑：IPRdaily赵珍          校对：IPRdaily纵横君

“投稿”请投邮箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「关于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影响力的知识产权媒体+产业服务平台，致力于连接全球知识产权人，用户汇聚了中国、美国、德国、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司、成长型科技企业IP高管、研发人员、法务、政府机构、律所、事务所、科研院校等全球近50多万产业用户（国内25万+海外30万）；同时拥有近百万条高质量的技术资源+专利资源，通过媒体构建全球知识产权资产信息第一入口。2016年获启赋资本领投和天使汇跟投的Pre-A轮融资。

（英文官网：iprdaily.com  中文官网：iprdaily.cn） 

本文来自Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn/”