推特公司诉Vidstream公司案:释明现有技术参考文献的证据标准

发布时间:2020-09-16 10:12:00 作者: Brinks 来源:美国布林克斯律师事务所 浏览次数:
案件索引:


Twitter, Inc. v. Vidstream LLC, No. 19-1708 (Fed. Cir. 2020)


本文主旨:


 202093日,联邦巡回法院在Twitter公司诉Vidstream LLC案(第19-1708号,联邦巡回法院,2020年)的非预判性判决中,对专利审判和上诉委员会(以下简称 "委员会")证明现有技术参考文献 "fairly suggests"的证据标准进行了澄清。
案件背景:


    根据联邦巡回法院的先例,委员会的显而易见性分析必须考虑现有技术参考文献 "不仅考虑它明确教导的内容,而且考虑它相当地暗示的内容"。参见Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (引自In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 在此,Twitter在上诉时辩称,委员会只考虑了现有技术参考文献(一篇被称为 "Lahti "的文章)明确教导的内容,而不是它对本领域技术人员的建议。 Twitter认为,委员会发现,Lahti所披露的设备可以以两种方式之一进行操作,这两种方式都是同样可能的,其中一种方式满足了有争议的限制。因此,Twitter辩称,该参考文献本应公平地提示争议的限制,而委员会在发现其他方式时是错误的。联邦巡回法院不同意这一观点,认为委员会没有作出 "同样可能 "的结论,而且Twitter在委员会上误解了证明非专利性的证据标准。

  联邦巡回法院解释说,虽然委员会发现Lahti可以公开该限制,但它正确地认为,这不足以证明Lahti向本领域技术人员公开或暗示该限制。联邦巡回法院驳回Twitter的论点,认为,"通过优势证据确定现有技术参考文献的范围和内容是申请人的责任",表明待证明的事实比不证明更有可能。据此,推特公司有责任证明Lahti公司向熟练技术人员公平地教授或暗示争议的限制条件是更有可能的。因此,当委员会认定Lahti可以以某种方式操作(并公开争议的限制条件)的建议并没有向熟练技术人员公平地暗示其将以这种方式操作时,委员会适用了正确的标准。 

本案启示:

  这虽然这是一项非先例性的裁决,但它包含了对申请人和专利权人都有用的启示。也就是说,该裁决澄清了证明与显而易见性异议有关的参考文献公平地表明了什么的 "goal posts"。双方都需要正确理解这一证据标准,以有效地证明或争论申请人已经履行了其责任。


QQ截图20211124160143.png

David Lindner is experienced in all facets of patent protection, including litigation, counseling, and U.S. and foreign prosecution. David applies his extensive technical background to safeguarding client innovation in telecommunication systems, computer networks, mobile applications, Internet, computer software, business methods, vehicle navigation systems, sensing technologies, speech systems, power meters, electronic circuitry, medical devices, and oil drilling machinery.



A tireless advocate for his clients’ intellectual property rights, David has litigated cases in federal district and appellate courts, and has appeared before the Patent Appeals and Interference Board (now the Patent Trial and Appeal Board).



QQ截图20211124160143.png

Drew focuses his practice on patent and trademark litigation, representing leading companies in the pharmaceutical and medical device sectors, as well as consumer products manufacturers. Drew has had significant experience at all stages of federal district court litigation and has developed experience in complex case management, coordination of global discovery efforts, Markman strategy and briefing, and the selection and preparation of expert witnesses. Drew has also gained extensive experience briefing and arguing inter partes reviews, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 
回到首页
顶部