只有专利权人的起诉才可触发35 U.S.C. § 315(b)时效限制

#本文由作者授权发布，未经作者许可，禁止转载，不代表IPRdaily立场#

发布：IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Andrew McElligott 律师 及Douglas A. Oguss律师
供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所
原标题：只有专利权人的起诉才可触发35 U.S.C. § 315(b)时效限制

本文案件中，专利审判和上诉委员会明确了只有具有诉讼资格的专利权人递交和送达的起诉状，才可在多方复审程序中触发适用§ 315(b) 条款规定的一年时效限制。

2019年1月31日，专利审判和上诉委员会在Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01331一案中裁决认为：只有专利权人的起诉状才可触发35 U.S.C. § 315(b) 条款下规定的一年时效限制。

美国专利法35 U.S.C. § 315(b)条款规定：如果多方复审程序（inter partes review ，IPR）的请愿书是在请愿人、实质利益关系人或与请愿人有利益关系之人，收到“专利侵权起诉状”之日起超过1年后提出的，则不可授予启动IPR。本案中，请愿人Sling TV等在2017年6月6日收到由Realtime Data送达的起诉状，但直至2018年7月3日请愿人才提交IPR请愿，超过收到起诉状一年的时间。

据此，专利权人Realtime Adaptive Streaming争辩认为Sling TV的请愿书受§ 315(b)的时效限制。PTAB依据事实驳回了专利权人的争辩理由，因为Realtime Data （并非专利权人Realtime Adaptive Streaming）于2017年6月6日递交起诉书。而在发起诉讼的三个月前，Realtime Data记录了一份向Realtime Adaptive Streaming的权利转让（Assignment）。因此在发起诉讼后，鉴于该转让Realtime Data自愿撤诉但保留再诉权利，随后Realtime Adaptive Streaming于2017年10月10日提交新的起诉状。PTAB认为2017年10月10日是用于衡量适用§ 315(b)时效限制的正确日期。

在得出结论时， PTAB认为“即便法律条文没有明确谁必须提交并送达起诉状，§ 315(b)的标题为‘专利权人的诉讼’，因此这意味着只有收到专利权人的起诉状通知才可触发一年时效限制。”PTAB进一步依据了立法史（legislative history）论证了“国会设想只有专利权人的起诉状才可触发时效限制。”

PTAB还驳回了Realtime Adaptive Streaming依赖联邦巡回法院在Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.案中所作的裁决。PTAB解释认为“Click-to-Call案中确立了原告后来的自愿撤诉行为不影响一年时效限制（即便原告自愿撤诉但仍可触发时效限制规定，被告可能无法在收到起诉状之日起的一年后对同一原告的专利提出IPR）”但Click-to-Call案并未解释“不具诉讼资格（without standing）的当事人所提交的起诉状是否可触发§ 315(b) 的时效限制。”

PTAB现在通过Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC明确了诉讼资格是触发时效限制的必须要求。

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.

发布：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Andrew McElligott 律师 及Douglas A. Oguss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IPRdaily.cn 中文网并经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/”