Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC (2018) 一案經過與法院判決
起初Dodocase將三件VR頭戴式設備的美國專利授權給MerchSource。一年後，MerchSource認為專利權人Dodocase並沒有積極維護專利權、加上認為授權之專利應為無效專利，因此停止支付權利金。隨後專利權人Dodocase提起訴訟、主張MerchSource違反授權協議。不意外的，MerchSource接著在PTAB分別對三件授權專利提起IPR複審，最終Dodocase於法院提出臨時強制令的動議 (motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction)，要求MerchSource撤回IPR複審申請。
此案授權協議中包含的不可挑戰條款原文如下：
MerchSource shall not (a) attempt to challenge the validity or enforceability of the Licensed IP; or (b) directly or indirectly, knowingly assist any Third Party in an attempt to challenge the validity or enforceability of the Licensed IP except to comply with any court order or subpoena.
對於以上不可挑戰條款之效力，加州北區地方法院判決中先是提到了Lear v. Adkins (1969)一案中最高法院的判決[2]，在該判決中，最高法院基於推翻無效專利有利公共利益之理由，推翻了先前沿用許久的專利被授權人禁反言原則 (patent licensee estoppel doctrine)；接著再提到Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)一案，最高法院在此案中又進一步確定了即使被授權人不否定授權協議效力 (without repudiating the contract)，且有持續支付權利金的情況下、仍可對授權專利提出無效挑戰。基於以上最高法院觀點，加州北區地方法院最終認為授權協議中的「不可挑戰條款」是不可實施的。
THE PARTIES AGREE . . . THAT DISPUTES SHALL BE LITIGATED BEFORE THE COURTS IN SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY OR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
以及：
The laws of the State of California shall govern any dispute arising out of or under this Agreement .
法院認為，合意管轄條款中的「SHALL BE LITIGATED」表述明確排除了San Francisco 以及 Orange Counties區域之外的其他法院 (it states that “disputes shall be litigated” in those courts, mandatory language akin to an express statement of exclusivity)；另外PTAB的IPR複審程序也符合「any dispute arising out of or under」 表述，認定IPR複審程序這個「dispute」應由San Francisco 以及 Orange Counties區域之法院來管轄，因而最終判決MerchSource必須撤回於PTAB進行中的IPR複審程序[3]。
在法院面前「不可挑戰條款」一定無效嗎?
難道在法院面前，就一定不能使用「不可挑戰條款」嗎? 其實不一定，例如最近 (2018年12月) Kenall Manufacturing Company v. Cooper Lighting, LLC 一案判決中，伊利諾伊北區法院引用了CAFC於Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts一案中的認定：基於訴訟和解具有較高的效力，因此在和解協議中「清晰的 (不可挑戰條款) 表述將禁止日後於侵權訴訟中的無效挑戰」是可實施的 (holding that “[i]n the context of settlement agreements, … clear and unambiguous language barring the right to challenge patent validity in future infringement actions” is enforceable in light of “the strong policy in favor of settlement of litigation”)，故最終認定和解協議中的不可挑戰條款有效，並駁回了被授權人的專利無效主張。
為什麽法院對於不可挑戰條款會有完全不同的認定?
其實眼尖的讀者應該已經發現了，重點是上述兩案是不同階段的協議，在本文開頭的Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC一案中，不可挑戰條款是記載在尚未發生訴訟的「專利授權協議」中；而在後面提出的Kenall Manufacturing Company v. Cooper Lighting, LLC 一案中，不可挑戰條款是記載在已發生訴訟後的「和解協議」中。對於這種區別的經典觀點為Rates Tech., Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc.一案，聯邦第二巡迴上訴法院在其判決書中說明：「我們認定在進入訴訟之前的不可挑戰條款是不可實施的，無論此協議是以和解形式或單純專利授權形式的風格來撰寫[4]，但要是進入訴訟、尤其是一但完成了證據開示程序 (discovery)，則應該要承認不可挑戰條款之效力」，即證據開示程序應被視為「不可挑戰條款是否可實施之分水嶺」，理由是：第一、被授權人已經有充分的機會來挑戰其有效性，但仍自願放棄；第二、雙方已經於證據開示程序中進行充分的有效性討論，因此不同於阻斷有效性挑戰的訴前專利授權協議[5]。
換言之，此案判決認定最高法院於Lear v. Adkins一案中所說的不可挑戰條款違反公眾利益論點，指的應是證據開示程序前未能充分討論有效性之時期，專利權人使用壟斷性條款來阻斷有效性挑戰，但一旦於證據開示程序中，雙方就訴爭專利有效性充分討論後、此時的不可挑戰承諾就不再違反公眾利益保護。總結來說，美國訴訟實務中，更傾向於承認證據開示程序 (discovery) 後簽署之「和解協定」中的不可挑戰條款之效力，而否定未提起訴訟之「專利授權協議」中的不可挑戰條款之效力[6]。
PTAB對於「不可挑戰條款」之態度為何?
目前看來PTAB是不會因為不可挑戰條款而拒絕審理複審申請的，即使此不可挑戰條款是寫在專利訴訟的和解協議中。在Dot Hill Systems Corp., v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., (IPR2015-00822) 一案中，立案階段的爭執重點即為：雙方先前和解協議中存在之不可挑戰條款是否能阻擋IPR複審程序的立案(institution)？PTAB認為(1)「同意複審程序對專利權人所造成的潛在傷害」並沒有大於「剝奪複審權利對被授權人所造成之傷害」(Any potential prejudice to Patent Owner due to institution in this proceeding and joinder of Petitioner in an “understudy” role to the ’1197 proceeding does not outweigh the prejudice to Petitioner of losing its opportunity to challenge the claims of the ’035 patent before the Office.)；(2)沒有法規明確規定禁反言類型的積極抗辯 (例如讓與人禁反言等) 可用於排除IPR複審 (no explicit provision provides for affirmative estoppel-based defenses, such as assignor estoppel, precluding institution of an inter partes review)，因此最終同意立案審理此IPR複審程序。
“Historically, courts would not allow patent licensees to challenge a patent’s validity. They reasoned that licensees shouldn’t be able to challenge validity on the one hand, while simultaneously enjoying a patent license’s benefits on the other hand. Hence, licensee estoppel.” COURTS WILL ENFORCE AGREEMENTS NOT TO CHALLENGE PATENTS AT THE PATENT OFFICE, George Schooff , March 28, 2018
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670 (“Surely the equities of the licensor do not weigh very heavily when they are balanced against the important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain. Licensees may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patentability of an inventor’s discovery. If they are muzzled, the public may continually be required to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification. We think it plain that the technical requirements of contract doctrine must give way before the demands of the public interest in the typical situation involving the negotiation of a license after a patent has issued”)
Rates Tech., Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., 685 F.3d 163, 172 (2d Cir. 2012) (“We therefore hold that covenants barring future challenges to a patent’s validity entered into prior to litigation are unenforceable, regardless of whether the agreements containing such covenants are styled as settlement agreements or simply as license agreements”)
Id., at 172. (“The fact that parties have conducted discovery seems to us significant in two respects. First, it suggests that the alleged infringer has had a full opportunity to assess the validity of the patent, and is therefore making an informed decision to abandon her challenge to its validity. Second, the fact that parties have conducted discovery is evidence that they had a genuine dispute over the patent’s validity, and that the patent owner is not seeking to prevent its monopoly from being challenged by characterizing ordinary licensing agreements as settlement agreements”)
Thomas K. Cheng. “Antitrust Treatment of the No Challenge Clause.”, 5 NYUJ. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 437 (2016) (注：對於不可挑戰條款有興趣深入研究的讀者，推薦閱讀)
