经验

单方复审程序

Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)

About

飞翰丰富的复审经验可为客户带来战术优势

飞翰在单方复审程序(EPR)方面拥有数十年的经验，通过该程序，美国专利商标局（USPTO）会根据新的现有技术对专利权利要求进行审查。本所专利律师指导客户运用EPR程序强化权利要求，从而在行权中获得优势。在制定地区法院及美国国际贸易委员会(ITC)的诉讼策略时，我们的诉讼团队会综合考虑专利审判与上诉委员会(PTAB)的双方复审程序(IPR)，以及可匿名提交至中央复审部门(CRU)的EPR请求。鉴于在专利可执行期内任何阶段均可提交EPR请求，这一多功能工具为专利权人与第三方挑战者提供了持续的战术选项，成为知识产权综合战略的重要组成部分。

常见问题：企业需了解的关于单方复审(EPR)事项

R如何强化专利？

EPR是专利权人强化专利权的战略手段，通过请求美国专利商标局依据现有技术重新审查专利。成功完成该流程可强化专利有效性推定，使专利更难被挑战并在诉讼中更具可辩护性。该流程还允许修改权利要求以明确保护范围，从而降低模糊性并提升可行权能力。经重新审查的专利向竞争对手传递强势信号，既能遏制侵权行为，又可增强潜在被许可方的信心，从而提升许可价值。简言之，EPR是一项降低风险、支持诉讼、最大化知识产权商业价值的投资。

***EPR*为何被视为反诉专利侵权指控的进攻性策略？**

通过提出新的现有技术来挑战所主张专利的有效性，会制造不确定性从而削弱控诉方的立场。法院通常会在复审期间中止诉讼，以此争取时间并降低风险。若专利权利要求被撤销或缩小范围，赔偿风险随之降低，和解谈判中的议价能力则会增强。启动复审程序将改变博弈格局，使防御姿态转化为主动的竞争优势。

EPR与IPR的主要区别是什么？

EPR与IPR在诉讼中具有不同的战略优势。EPR由美国专利商标局审查员执行，且在请求提交后仅涉及专利权人，因此有助于制造专利有效性不确定性并可能延迟诉讼程序。而IPR则是专利审判与上诉委员会（PTAB）主持的对抗性程序，双方当事人需积极参与类似庭审程序。该程序须在侵权诉讼提起后一年内启动，且可能导致请求人产生禁反言效力。IPR通常在12-18个月内结案，而EPR往往耗时更长，这将影响纠纷解决的时间节点与双方的谈判筹码。

Everyone in this practice

经验

Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.

1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU

Represented DuPont in Federal Circuit appeal from Board decision in inter partes reexamination proceeding relating to transgenic soybean technology, leading to affirmance of the decision in DuPont’s favor.

17-1032, -1098, Fed. Cir.

Represented FedEx in a complete defense victory in case involving claims of infringement of a large patent portfolio related to interactive voice response systems, following consolidation in multidistrict litigation (MDL), favorable summary judgment rulings, an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and opinions from the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) on reexamination requests, and after patent owner Ron Katz reportedly earned approximately $1 billion in license fees from over 150 companies.

2:06-cv-00334, E.D. Tex., Judges Folsom, Gilstrap
2:07-CV-02196, C.D. Cal., Judges Klausner, Mumm, Quinn
2:07-ml-01816, C.D. Cal., Judges Klausner, Mumm
CBM2015-00053, PTAB, Judges Busch, Cocks, Wormmeester
Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,586, USPTO, Judge Ralis
2:15-cv-02329, W.D. Tenn., Judges McCalla, Pham
09-1450, -1451, -1452, -1468, -1469; 10-1017, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Lourie, Newman

Member of team that represented Abbott Vascular in inter partes reexaminations related to biocompatible materials for medical devices.

Reexamination Nos. 95/000,552, 95/000,542, USPTO, Judge Jones

Represented the patent owner in five inter partes reexamination proceedings.

95/001,679, 95/001,746, 95/001,792, 95/001,851, 95/001,856, USPTO, Judges Foster, Hughes, Peikari, Pokrzywa

Defended FedEx against two patent infringement lawsuits against package tracking sensor technology; obtained stays pending proceedings at the USPTO; successfully represented FedEx in inter partes reexamination and IPR. The inter partes reexamination and IPR resulted in decisions cancelling all patent claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in both instances.

4:11-cv-05367, N.D. Cal., Judges Hamilton, Ryu
4:14-cv-04894, N.D. Cal., Judges Beeler, Hamilton, Seeborg
IPR2014-00833, PTAB, Judges Droesch, Lee, Zecher
16-1911, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Hughes, O'Malley