Aatrix訴Green Shades專利侵權(quán)案中的「專利主題適格性及事實(shí)問(wèn)題」

#文章僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Lawrence G. Almeda律師 及 Andrew W. Umlauf律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：專利主題適格性及事實(shí)問(wèn)題

本文案件中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院在裁定包含§101專利適格性問(wèn)題的撤案動(dòng)議和簡(jiǎn)易判決時(shí)，給予事實(shí)主張更多的權(quán)重，并認(rèn)為如果案件存在事實(shí)爭(zhēng)議，則不可根據(jù)12(b)(6)規(guī)則遞交撤案動(dòng)議。

在Aatrix Software, Inc v. Greenshades Software, Inc.一案中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院撤銷了地區(qū)法院作出的駁回原告“請(qǐng)求準(zhǔn)予提交第二次修正起訴書(shū)動(dòng)議（motion for leave to file a second amended complaint）”的裁決。

根據(jù)Moore法官撰寫(xiě)的多數(shù)意見(jiàn)，下級(jí)法院駁回原告動(dòng)議的裁決是不恰當(dāng)?shù)?，因?yàn)樾拚鹪V書(shū)提出了有關(guān)35 U.S.C. §101專利主題適格性的事實(shí)指控（factual allegations），如果主張真實(shí)則可排除駁回。

法條擴(kuò)充：聯(lián)邦民事訴訟規(guī)則12(b)(6)

該法條適用于庭審前，允許一方通過(guò)遞交撤案動(dòng)議（motion to dismiss）對(duì)指控進(jìn)行防御，其中12(b)(6)特別針對(duì)當(dāng)被告認(rèn)為原告“未提出支持救濟(jì)的訴求（failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted）”而提出撤案動(dòng)議的情況，既被告認(rèn)為即便法庭接受訴狀中所有事實(shí)性陳述，假定該等陳述全部屬實(shí)，這些陳述也不能支持任何可以使原告獲得救濟(jì)的訴因。

當(dāng)不存事實(shí)指控的情況下，35 U.S.C. §101專利主題適格性的問(wèn)題可以在12(b)(6)階段決定，如果存在則阻礙將其作為法律問(wèn)題（question as a matter of law）進(jìn)行判決。如果在這一階段存在對(duì)權(quán)利要求范圍的爭(zhēng)議（事實(shí)問(wèn)題），法庭必須解決事實(shí)爭(zhēng)議至可實(shí)施§101分析。

案件背景

Aatrix訴Green Shades侵犯其兩項(xiàng)專利。Green Shades根據(jù)12(b)(6)規(guī)則遞交撤案動(dòng)議，稱在§101條款下原告所要求的發(fā)明不具有專利適格性。地區(qū)法院支持了該動(dòng)議。地區(qū)法院的理由是權(quán)利要求指向一個(gè)“可以使用筆和紙所執(zhí)行的基本人類活動(dòng)”抽象概念。Aatrix隨后請(qǐng)求準(zhǔn)予加入額外事實(shí)主張來(lái)修正起訴書(shū)，以證明所要求的發(fā)明包含可以提高計(jì)算機(jī)運(yùn)作的創(chuàng)造性發(fā)明組件。地區(qū)法院駁回Aatrix的動(dòng)議請(qǐng)求并認(rèn)為“考慮到申請(qǐng)文件和相關(guān)判例法，（地區(qū)法院）認(rèn)為沒(méi)有理由重新考慮先前裁決。”

聯(lián)邦巡回法院

聯(lián)邦巡回法院在意見(jiàn)書(shū)中撤銷了駁回，法院指出“本案在12(b)(6)規(guī)則階段不適合作出專利不具適格性的最終裁決?！币庖?jiàn)書(shū)進(jìn)一步解釋“所請(qǐng)求的第二次修正起訴書(shū)……如果被認(rèn)為屬實(shí)，則證明了權(quán)利要求組合包含了創(chuàng)造性發(fā)明組件及提高了計(jì)算機(jī)運(yùn)作?！贝送?，法院提供了所請(qǐng)求的修正起訴書(shū)中事實(shí)主張的具體列子，如果屬實(shí)，則會(huì)引起§101分析背后的事實(shí)爭(zhēng)議。

本案是近期聯(lián)邦巡回法院對(duì)下級(jí)法院作出早期駁回專利訴訟裁決提出異議的第二起案件，這些早期駁回都基于在Alice框架下發(fā)現(xiàn)權(quán)利力要求不具有適格性。在另一起案件中Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Feb. 8, 2018), 聯(lián)邦巡回法院撤銷了部分地區(qū)法院作出的專利不具適格性的簡(jiǎn)易判決，因?yàn)榘讣藢?duì)相關(guān)權(quán)利要求是否含有易于理解、常規(guī)和傳統(tǒng)之特性的實(shí)質(zhì)性爭(zhēng)議。

兩起案件的一致主題是，聯(lián)邦巡回法院顯然在裁定包含§101專利適格性問(wèn)題的撤案動(dòng)議和簡(jiǎn)易判決時(shí)，給予事實(shí)主張更多的權(quán)重。

附：英文全文

Subject Matter Eligibility and Questions of Fact

In Aatrix Software, Inc v. Greenshades Software, Inc. (Feb. 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. According to the majority opinion written by Judge Moore, the lower court improperly granted dismissal because the amended complaint raised factual allegations concerning subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 which, if accepted as true, would preclude dismissal.

Aatrix sued Green Shades alleging infringement of two patents. Green Shades moved for to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claimed inventions are ineligible under§101. The district court granted the motion. The district court reasoned that the claims were directed to an abstract idea of “fundamental human activity that can be performed using a pen and paper.” Aatrix moved for leave to amend the complaint with additional factual allegations to show that the claimed inventions include inventive components that improve the workings of a computer. The district court denied Aatrix's motions and held that "[u]pon consideration of the filings and the relevant case law, the [district court] sees no reason to reconsider its prior determination."

In the Federal Circuit’s opinion reversing the dismissal, the court noted that "[t]his is not a case where patent ineligibility was properly adjudicated with finality at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage." The opinion further reasoned, "the proposed second amended complaint, … if accepted as true, establish that the claimed combination contains inventive components and improves the workings of the computer." In addition, the court provided specific examples of factual allegations from the proposed amended complaint that, if taken as true, raise factual disputes underlying the §101 analysis.

The Aatrix holding marks the second decision this month in which the Federal Circuit has disagreed with the early dismissal of patent litigation where claims were found ineligible under the Alice framework. In Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Feb. 8, 2018), the Federal Circuit partially vacated a district court's summary judgement of ineligibility because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether some of the pertinent claims included well-understood, routine, and conventional features. A consistent theme in both cases is that the Federal Circuit appears to be increasing the weight given to factual allegations in adjudicating motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgement that involve patent eligibility under §101.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Lawrence G. Almeda律師 及 Andrew W. Umlauf律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017全國(guó)申請(qǐng)人確權(quán)商標(biāo)持有量排名（前100名）

“投稿”請(qǐng)投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬(wàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬(wàn)+海外30萬(wàn)）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬(wàn)條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過(guò)媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來(lái)自IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://jupyterflow.com/”