專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則不適用于多方復審程序

#本文僅代表作者觀點，未經作者許可，禁止轉載，不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura Beth Miller律師 及Sarah Goodman律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

原標題：專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則不適用于多方復審程序

本文案件中，美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院裁決認為“專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則（doctrine of assignor estoppel）”不可適用于多方復審程序，因為國會在35 U.S.C. § 311(a) 中明確表達任何非專利所有人均可遞交IPR請愿。這意味著通過雇員轉讓其發(fā)明而獲得專利所有權的雇主，仍然面臨著可能受到來自專利轉讓人或其利益相關人在未來發(fā)起IPR攻擊的風險。

不久之前，美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院就以下問題進行考量并作出裁決：專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則（doctrine of assignor estoppel）是否可適用于多方復審（inter partes review， IPR）。法院認為該原則不可適用，因為35 U.S.C. § 311(a)明確的表達了國會的意圖，既任何非專利所有人均可遞交IPR請愿。

案件背景

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 涉案的597專利涉及保護計算機網絡設備免受外部攻擊的技術。597專利的發(fā)明人在發(fā)明期間，曾作為員工就職于Cisco Systems, Inc.。發(fā)明人將這項發(fā)明的專利權轉讓給Cisco并保證將幫助獲得并執(zhí)行該專利。發(fā)明人隨后從Cisco離職并與他人共同創(chuàng)立Arista Networks, Inc.

此后，Arista對597專利的若干權利要求遞交IPR請愿。在PTAB的最終書面裁決中，受挑戰(zhàn)的權利要求中僅有部分被無效。Arista對沒有被無效的權利要求裁決進行上訴。Cisco交叉上訴裁決中被無效的權利要求，并稱PTAB錯誤的沒有適用“專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則”，以阻止Arista在最初對專利的有效性進行挑戰(zhàn)。

專利轉讓人禁止反悔的相關問題

“專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則”起源于英美法系，該原則禁止專利的轉讓人或其利益相關人（privity），如轉讓人所設立的公司，在隨后對其所轉讓專利的有效性進行挑戰(zhàn)。這一原則得到美國最高法院的承認。該原則同時也被ITC程序所采納適用。在本案相關的ITC調查中，委員會認為“專利轉讓人禁止反悔”阻止了Arista對Cisco專利有效性的挑戰(zhàn)。

上訴中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院首先對PTAB認為不適用“專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則”這一裁決是否具有復審性（reviewable）進行評估。法院認為是可進行復審的，因為這一裁決與PTAB局長作出的初步可專利性評估沒有緊密聯(lián)系，也與即便達到可專利性評估的門檻但局長決定不啟動復審沒有聯(lián)系。

隨后法院對該原則是否可適用（applicability）于IPR程序進行考慮。PTAB提供了該原則不適用IPR程序的兩點原因：（1）35 U.S.C. § 311(a) 說明了國會對挑戰(zhàn)專利有效性能力的廣泛授權，及（2）國會沒有明確承認“專利轉讓人禁止反悔原則”在IPR中的適用。法院支持了以上觀點，總結到§ 311(a)條款的法律語言 – “任何非專利所有人均可向專利局遞交啟動IPR的請愿…… ”明確地表明國會沒有意向在IPR請愿中排除專利轉讓人。

法院意識到這一裁決可能會導致挑選法院（forum shopping）的情況出現(xiàn)，但總結認為這一裁決與IPR的目標一致。本裁決還解決了先前法院在裁定可復審性問題中潛在不一致的問題。比較Husky Inj. Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d. 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 與 Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

啟示

本案對公司中有雇員向雇主轉讓其發(fā)明的情況具有重要意義。即便專利所有人可在地區(qū)法院阻止專利轉讓人進行的有效性挑戰(zhàn)，專利所有人仍可能受到來自專利轉讓人或其利益相關人發(fā)起的IPR攻擊。一個開放性的問題有待繼續(xù)考察，既這樣的情況可否通過簽訂合同條款來避免，其中特別指出雇員將放棄在隨后訴訟中對專利有效性進行挑戰(zhàn)的權利。

附：英文全文

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in an Inter Partes Review Proceeding

On November 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel should apply in the context of an inter partes review.  The Court concluded that the doctrine of assignor estoppel does not apply because 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously reflects Congress’s intent that any person who is not the owner of a patent may file an inter partes review petition.

Background

The patent at issue (the ’597 patent) relates to protecting computer network devices from external attacks. The inventor of the ’597 patent was a Cisco Systems, Inc. employee at the time of the invention.  He assigned his rights to the invention to Cisco and provided assurances that he would aid in obtaining and enforcing the patent.  The inventor subsequently left Cisco and co-founded Arista Networks, Inc.

Thereafter, Arista petitioned for an inter partes review of certain claims of the ’597 patent.  In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) concluded that only some challenged claims were invalid.  Arista appealed the decision upholding certain claims as valid.  Cisco cross-appealed the decision finding certain claims invalid, and asserted that the PTAB erred by not applying the doctrine of assignor estoppel to prevent Arista from initially challenging the patent’s validity.

Assignor Estoppel Issue

The doctrine of assignor estoppel is a common law principle that bars the assignor of a patent, or those in privity with the assignor, such as a corporation founded by the assignor, from subsequently challenging the validity of the patent.  The doctrine has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court.  See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 349 (1924).  The doctrine also has been applied in the context of ITC proceedings.  In a related ITC investigation, the Commission held that assignor estoppel barred Arista’s challenge to Cisco’s patent validity.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first evaluated whether the PTAB’s decision not to apply assignor estoppel was reviewable.  The Court concluded that it could review this decision because the issue was not closely related to the PTAB Director’s preliminary patentability assessment or the Director’s discretion not to institute even if the threshold patentability assessment was met.

The Court then considered the applicability of the doctrine in the context of IPR proceedings.  The PTAB had provided two reasons for its determination that assignor estoppel did not apply in inter partes review proceedings, concluding that: (1) 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) demonstrates Congress’s broad grant of the ability to challenge patent validity and (2) Congress has not expressly recognized assignor estoppel in the inter partes review context.  The Court agreed, concluding that the language of § 311(a) - “a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review . . .” - unambiguously demonstrates that Congress did not intend to exclude an assignor from petitioning for inter partes review.

The Court recognized that its decision could lead to forum shopping, but concluded that the decision was consistent with the goals of inter partes review.  The decision also resolves a potential inconsistency in prior Court rulings on the issue of reviewability.  Compare Husky Inj. Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d. 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) with Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc).

Implications

This case may be significant for companies with employees who assign inventions to their employer. Even though a patent owner could potentially block a validity challenge from an assignor in district court, the patent owner may still be vulnerable to an inter partes review petition by the assignor or those in privity with an assignor.  An open question remains as to whether this scenario could be avoided through contractual provisions that specifically waive the right to challenge validity in subsequent proceedings.  

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura Beth Miller律師 及Sarah Goodman律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產權媒體+產業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產權人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產業(yè)用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產權資產信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

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

本文來自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所并經IPRdaily.cn中文網編輯。轉載此文章須經權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://jupyterflow.com/”