The PTAB Discovery Procedure under Post-Grant Proceedings

知識經濟時代下，智慧財產權對企業之影響日趨重要，如何妥適管理、保護其智慧財產甚至建立企業對外之智財策略更是一項重大工程。其中尤以專利權之保護與管理更為棘手。近年許多企業利用專利訴訟作為排擠競爭對手之手段，尤其當專利訴訟發生於國外時，我國企業面對來自國外企業或本地企業外地訴訟之壓力或禁制令威脅，往往使企業疲於奔命，或因而負擔鉅額損害賠償金額，削弱企業投注研發創新之能量。面對當地專利濫訴現象頻繁、專利獎勵發明鼓勵創新與技術累積之宗旨受到極大挑戰之情形下，美國於2011年9月16日由總統歐巴馬簽署，通過美國專利法立法以來變動篇幅，影響最大之美國發明法案。其中該法案提出之核准後複審程序(PGR)、多方複審程序(IPR)以及涵蓋商業方法專利過渡複審程序(CBM)將專利有效性爭議轉由美國專利審理暨訴願委員會(PTAB)處理，以更為迅速、費用更為合理之程序快速解決專利有效性爭議，減輕聯邦法院專利訴訟之負擔，同時為美國專利品質提出更有效率之檢驗機制。 其中，美國專利商標局下之專利審理暨訴願委員會融合行政程序之高效率，兼具技術與法律專業知識之法官，提供類似訴訟性質之複審程序，自美國發明法案施行以來廣受歡迎，實行三年已累積達四千多件複審案件，足見複審程序已躍升為美國專利有效性爭議之主要解決舞台。故企業對於複審程序之認識與掌握更是刻不容緩。惟複審程序因融合訴訟性質而設有「證據發現程序」，其實踐上與美國一般民事訴訟或美國專利訴訟有所不同，係證據發現標的與方式更為限縮之有限證據發現程序。考量我國企業通常對於美國特有之證據發現程序並不熟悉，本文首先說明各複審程序之完整流程，建立對複審程序之具體框架，接著介紹美國證據發現程序之基本概念，輔以美國專利訴訟證據發現相關之補充規定，最後深入探討專利審理暨訴願委員會下，複審程序中當事人進行證據發現之期間規定、方式以及有限證據發現程序之特殊規定，同時本文就專利審理暨訴願委員會實際做成之重要案例中進行分析，歸納該委員會實務運作之審理標準，並嘗試從中提出企業未來於複審程序證據發現過程中事項或請求方法之建議，增加企業有效運用複審程序之機會。Intellectual property plays a critical role in corporate development nowadays. Its management, protection and strategy-forming can be difficult for companies at times. Patent management, for instance, is one of the most challenging issues. Many companies use patent litigation in U.S. as a tool to exclude their competitors from entering the market, or to extract large amounts of damages and loyalties, causing Taiwanese companies to spend more money on litigation and settlement rather than on technology studies and development. As the scale of patent litigations starts to distort patent system, the U.S. government decided to take action. In 2011, the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. Representing the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1970, AIA creates administrative remedy proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. However, to comply with statutory provisions and legislative intent of the AIA, the strong public policy leads to a limit discovery in AIA proceedings. Therefore, the scope of discovery in AIA proceedings before PTAB differs significantly from the scope of discovery, which is generally available under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in district court litigation. To gain better understanding of the practice of discovery in AIA trials, and the trend regarding how PTAB accomplish AIA’s legislative intent through its decisions on motions for additional discovery, this study will start with introduction of the AIA post grant remedies including PGR, IPR and CBM. By stating the clarification of discovery concept in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this study will navigate the implementation of discovery in AIA trials and analyze decisions given by PTAB. Through observing the trend of PTAB discovery decisions, this study propose some possible solutions and strategies for Taiwanese company participating in post-grant proceedings before PTAB