Experience

單方再審查

Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)

About

專利再審查方面的豐富經驗讓我們在案件處理上具有策略優勢

飛翰在單方再審查有數十年的豐富經驗，透過該程序，美國專利商標局會針對新的先前技術重新審查專利請求項。我們的專利律師協助客戶運用單方再審查，強化專利請求項以提升執行與維權上的談判籌碼。就聯邦地方法院及美國國際貿易委員會案件擬定訴訟策略時，我們的訴訟團隊會同時考量專利審判與上訴委員會受理的多方複審，以及可匿名向中央再審查單位提出的單方再審查請求。由於在專利可執行期間任何時間皆可提出單方再審查請求，這項多功能利器成為專利權人與第三方挑戰者持續且具彈性的策略選項，成為整體智財策略中的重要環節。

常見問題：企業對單方再審查需要有那些理解

單方再審查如何強化專利？
單方再審查是一種策略性工具，專利權人透過請求美國專利商標局就先前技術重新審查使得以增加專利強度。成功完成再審查，專利的有效性推定獲得強化，使後續挑戰更加困難，面臨訴訟時也更具防禦力。再審查程序允許修正請求項，以釐清權利範圍，減少歧義，並提升可執行性。經過再審查的專利能向競爭對手傳達強而有力的訊號，遏止侵權，並加深潛在被授權人的信心，有助於提升授權收益。簡言之，單方再審查是一項能降低風險，支援訴訟，並最大化智財商業價值的投資。

為何單方再審查被視為一種反制專利侵權指控的攻擊性策略？
透過新的先前技術挑戰系爭專利的有效性能製造不確定性，從而削弱控方立場。法院通常會於再審查期間暫停訴訟程序，為被控侵權方爭取時間並降低風險。若請求項遭撤銷或限縮，潛在的損害賠償金額也隨之降低，並增加和解談判籌碼。啟動再審查能有效改變攻防態勢，將被動防禦扭轉為先發制人的競爭優勢。

單方再審查與多方複審的主要差異為？
單方再審查與多方複審在訴訟策略上各具不同優勢。單方再審查由美國專利商標局審查委員審理，提出申請後只有專利權人得以參與，增添專利有效性的不確定性，並可能延遲相關訴訟進程。反之，多方複審是向專利審判與上訴委員會提起的敵對訴訟程序，雙方均可積極參與類似審判的程序。多方複審必須在收到侵權訴狀後一年內提出，且訴願人可能面臨禁反言後果。通常在 12 至 18 個月內結案，單方再審查審理時間往往較長，進而影響爭議案件的時程與談判籌碼。

Everyone in this practice

Experience

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