美國眾議院(House of Representatives)日前通過的專利改革法案，一般大型電子廠商都表示贊許，個人發(fā)明者卻多所批評；針對這項可能會為許多方面帶來中等程度沖擊的法案，美國國會仍會繼續(xù)完成立法。

IBM首席專利律師Manny Schecter

英特爾(Intel)智能財產(chǎn)策略副首席顧問David Simon指出：“這項法案在過去十年投入了龐大人力與時間，我們認為，眾議院所通過的法案更進一步改善了今年稍早參議院通過的版本?！?IBM首席專利律師Manny Schecter表示：“我不認為我們的專利收購策略會(因?qū)＠母锓ò?有改變；但我們預期，當市場上不合理的專利減少，我們可以不需要像現(xiàn)在這樣自我防衛(wèi)?！? 一位企業(yè)家Steve Perlman則批評：“這個已通過的法案通并非有關發(fā)明的法案，而是一個權威、無知與冷漠的法案，就像那些導致金融風暴與大蕭條的法案?！?他為了旗下某家新創(chuàng)公司的基礎專利(patent fundamental)，等了8年。 美國國會在送出最終法案給總統(tǒng)奧巴馬簽署之前，必須先協(xié)調(diào)參、眾兩院法案內(nèi)容的歧異；目前不清楚立法程序還需要多少時間，或是在過程中會有什幺樣的變化。 “人們已經(jīng)為這個法案付出很長時間，所以它有很大的機會可獲得通過；但其中的債務上限(debt ceiling)議題，可能得花上一番工夫?！?Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione律師事務所的專利律師暨合伙人Allen Baum表示。 美國專利改革法案中最具爭議性的部分，是將原本的“發(fā)明優(yōu)先(first-to-invent)制”改為“申請優(yōu)先(first-to-file)制”，旨在與大多數(shù)世界其它國家的專利制度一致化；但像是Perlman那樣的個人發(fā)明家警告，此舉可能會引爆專利申請潮，而且大企業(yè)將占據(jù)優(yōu)勢。 對此IBM的Schecter表示，改采“申請優(yōu)先制”對該公司的專利申請策略不會有實質(zhì)上的影響：“我們并不會因此增加或減少申請案，或是改變提出申請案的做法?！?IBM在過去18年來，每年都是取得最多美國專利的企業(yè)。 IBM與Intel都表示，美國每年上百萬件專利申請案中，只有約70件會產(chǎn)生誰是第一個發(fā)明者這方面的爭議。專利律師Baum則認為，各家企業(yè)會因此思考如何以更快的速度提出專利申請：“擁有更多資源的大企業(yè)會占據(jù)優(yōu)勢，但目前制度對小公司一樣不利?！?Baum解釋：“在目前的制度下，小型企業(yè)與個人發(fā)明家要提出紀錄證明他們的發(fā)明優(yōu)先，是很困難的；舉行干預聽證會(interference hearing)的代價非常高，很多小公司寧愿自己認輸?！? 本文下一頁：美國專利法案的獨特性與創(chuàng)新 本文授權編譯自EE Times，版權所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載

相關閱讀：
• 三星與Spansion和解，賠款、交叉授權一氣呵成
• 蘋果支付諾基亞巨額專利賠款，意在拖Google下水？
• 歐司朗起訴三星LG侵犯其LED專利權tZResmc

{pagination} 美國專利法案的獨特性與創(chuàng)新 與其它國家專利制度的一致化，預期將有助于減輕美國各大專利事務所的工作負擔，例如現(xiàn)有技術檢索(prior art searches)；此外也可簡化那些有必要申請專利、將產(chǎn)品行銷全球之企業(yè)的工作程序。 但美國專利法案與其它國家相較還是有其獨特性，例如允許發(fā)明人在申請專利之前，擁有公開其發(fā)明(例如給潛在投資人)的一年寬限期(grace period)。 至于法案中難得取得各方共識的一點，是認為法案中讓專利局保有所收取之業(yè)務費用的條款，是一種進步；目前美國專利局所囤積的申請案超過70萬件，平均每項申請案得花上三年的審查時間。 “專利改革法案的一個關鍵，是終止了專利局業(yè)務費用的轉(zhuǎn)移，讓申請等待時間可望縮短，并提升獲通過之專利品質(zhì)?！?IP顧問暨分析機構UBM TechInsights 副總裁Mike Mclean表示：“眾議院對相關條款的妥協(xié)，是往正確方向邁進了一步；但參議院的法案版本在這方面更為強硬，因此可能會是優(yōu)先選項?！? 此外專利改革法案也為專利局首創(chuàng) “事后審查(post-grant review)“ 制度，以剔除早期不當專利，并減少針對專利有效性所提出的法律訴訟案件。 Baum表示，該審查制度允許專家聲明、證詞與偵查，會更像是對抗式審查程序(adversarial proceeding)，這種制度在歐洲已成功減少法庭訴訟。他也表示，此新制度雖可能帶來數(shù)萬美元的經(jīng)費增加，是目前制度的兩倍；但法庭訴訟案耗費成本更大：“這為小型企業(yè)提供一個更具意義性的挑戰(zhàn)選項，大企業(yè)也會廣泛利用此程序進行對抗?！? 眾議院版本法案也讓已經(jīng)在使用某項技術的企業(yè)，取得該技術的優(yōu)先使用權，甚至是在該技術專利已經(jīng)被授予其它公司之后。IBM與Intel都對此表示贊同，但Intel表示，相關法案條款內(nèi)容應該更為明確，使其適用于產(chǎn)品與制程。 “我們花費很長時間開發(fā)(芯片)制程，也希望對相關技術保密、不使競爭對手得知；” Intel的Simon表示：”我們在這方面申請不少專利，例如三閘晶體管技術(tri-gate transistors)；但還有其它不少我們未申請專利、卻需要保密的。” 另外法案中限制單一專利侵權訴訟涉及太多不相關公司的規(guī)定，也受到Intel與其它大公司的好評；Simon表示：”很多這類案件都是無用的麻煩?！痹摫娮h院版本法案也終止了針對企業(yè)以過期專利宣傳產(chǎn)品所提出的訴訟案件；Baum表示：“專利律師經(jīng)手數(shù)百件這種訴訟，它們讓許多大企業(yè)抓狂，是對專利制度的一種濫用?！? 編譯：Judith Cheng 本文授權編譯自EE Times，版權所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文: Opinions divided on patent reform impact, by Rick Merritt

相關閱讀：
• 三星與Spansion和解，賠款、交叉授權一氣呵成
• 蘋果支付諾基亞巨額專利賠款，意在拖Google下水？
• 歐司朗起訴三星LG侵犯其LED專利權tZResmc

{pagination} Opinions divided on patent reform impact Rick Merritt SAN JOSE, Calif. – Large electronics companies generally praised and individual inventors criticized the patent reforms passed yesterday by the U.S, House of Representatives. Congress still has to complete the legislation which is expected to have moderate impact across a diverse range of issues. "A lot of people have put a lot of effort over the last ten years in this and our view is the House bill improved on the Senate bill passed earlier this year," said David Simon, associate general counsel for intellectual property policy at Intel. "I don’t think we will change our strategy for acquiring patents [due to the reforms], but we expect with fewer unjustifiable patents in the market we will not have defend ourselves as frequently as we do today," said Manny Schecter, IBM's chief patent counsel. "While a bill was passed, it was not a bill about invention, [it] was a bill about influence, ignorance and indifference, much like the bills that led to the financial collapse and the great recession," said Steve Perlman, a serial entrepreneur who waited eight years for a patent fundamental to one of his startups. Congress must reconcile differences in House and Senate legislation before sending a final bill to President Obama who has signaled he will sign it. It's not clear how long that will take or what items might get changed in the process. "People have been working on this a long time so there's a good chance it will get passed, but with the debt ceiling issue out there it could take time," said Allen Baum, a patent attorney and managing shareholder at Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione. One of the most controversial provisions of the bill was its move from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system to harmonize with most other patent offices around the world. Individual inventors such as Perlman warned the move would spark a rush to the patent office in which big companies would have an advantage. "Going to first-to-file won't have a material impact on our patent application strategy," said Schecter of IBM which has been awarded the most U.S. patents every year for the last 18 years. "We won't file more or less because of it, and we won't change the way we process our apps because of it," he said. Both IBM and Intel noted only about 70 out of nearly a million patents a year go into so-called interference disputes at the patent office about which was the first to invent. Patent attorney Baum said he believes companies will explore how they can file applications more quickly. "Large companies with more resources will be advantaged, but the current system disadvantages little guys anyway," Baum said. Today "it's hard for small companies and garage inventors to keep the kind of records needed to show they are first to invent, it's very expensive to conduct an interference hearing and little guys tend to lose them," Baum explained. The harmonization is expected to help major patent offices share more work, such as prior art searches. It is also expected to simplify the job of companies who must apply for patents and sell products globally. The harmonization is only partial. The U.S. is still unique in having a one-year grace period in which inventors can disclose their inventions—to potential investors, for example—before they have to apply for a patent. Patent office funding, reviews All sides agree letting the patent office set and keep all its fees is an improvement, given the agency has a backlog of more than 700,000 applications and takes on average three years to grant a patent. "The key to the reform bill is ending fee diversion to reduce wait times and improve quality of patents being issued," said Mike Mclean, a vice president at UBM TechInsights, an IP consulting and analysis group. "The compromise on that issue in the House bill is a step in the right direction, but the Senate bill is much stronger in that regard and as a result would be the preferred option," he said. The bill also creates a new post-grant review process at the patent office, aiming to weed out bad patents early and reduce a backlog of court cases challenging the validity of patents. The new review process "allows expert statements, deposition and discovery so it will be a much more adversarial proceeding," said Baum, noting the process has successfully reduced court challenges in Europe. The new patent office review could cost "a couple hundred thousand dollars," more than twice as much as today's post-grant reviews, Baum said. But that's still well below the alternative of a court challenges than can cost an order of magnitude more. "This gives small companies an option to have a more meaningful challenge, and big companies will use this extensively against one another, too," he said. The House bill also lets a company already using a technology have a prior use right to it, even after a patent application is granted to another company. IBM and Intel welcomed the provision, though Intel said the language could be clearer for applying it to products as well as processes. "We spend a very long time developing our [chip] manufacturing processes, and we want to keep them secret and not share them with competitors," said Simon. "We do patent a lot of it, and a lot of patents have issued on our tri-gate transistors for instance, but there's a lot of stuff we don’t patent but keep it secret," he said. The bill also limits the ability to bring a single suit against many unrelated companies for infringing a patent, a provision Intel and other large companies praised. "These cases become huge unworkable messes," said Simon. The House bill also ends the practice of suing companies for marking their products with patents that have expired. "Patent attorneys filed hundreds of these suits, and it's driving big companies nuts—it's an abuse of the system," said Baum.