联邦巡回上诉法院维持专利权人诉苹果公司部分胜诉裁决
来源：广东中策知识产权研究院 发布日期：2025-03-19 阅读：27次
“Apple overstates what the Board ignored…. It applied a reasoned analysis for rejecting [Apple’s] arguments.”- CAFC opinion
联邦巡回上诉法院（CAFC）在判决意见中指出：“苹果公司过度渲染了专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB）所忽视的内容……该委员会已通过合理分析驳回了苹果的论点。”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today in a precedential decision upheld a mixed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that found some claims of Gesture Technology’s patent on camera sensing technology for handheld gaming and other devices to be unpatentable, but others not proven unpatentable. The inter partes review (IPR) was brought by Apple, Inc., which appealed the Board’s partial finding of unpatentability.
美国联邦巡回上诉法院（CAFC）今日以一项具有先例约束力的判决，维持专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB）此前作出的混合性无效裁决。该裁决认定，Gesture Technology公司一项涉及手持游戏设备及其他装置摄像头传感技术的专利（U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431）中，部分权利要求因缺乏专利性而无效，但其余权利要求因证据不足维持有效。本案源于苹果公司（Apple, Inc.）提起的双方复审程序（IPR），其针对PTAB部分无效认定提出上诉。
U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices.” The PTAB held claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 unpatentable and claims 11 and 13 not shown to be unpatentable. Apple appealed and Gesture cross-appealed. Apple argued that the Board used the wrong legal standard for obviousness and ignored Apple’s arguments, while Gesture argued in part that Apple had no standing to appeal due to estoppel arising from a previous IPR brought by Unified Patents against the same claims.
涉案专利（U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431）名称为“手持、移动、游戏或其他设备中基于摄像头的传感技术”。PTAB认定该专利权利要求1-10、12及14-31因缺乏专利性而无效，而权利要求11与13因证据不足维持有效。苹果公司对此提出上诉，Gesture公司则提起交叉上诉。苹果主张PTAB错误适用“显而易见性”法律标准且忽视其抗辩理由；Gesture则辩称，因Unified Patents此前就同一权利要求提起IPR引发禁止反言，苹果已丧失上诉资格。
The CAFC opinion first referred to Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc. as support for its determination that Gesture had forfeited its estoppel argument because it failed to raise a real party in interest/ privy argument before the Board in the earlier Unified Patents case. It did not, however, decide the question whether Apple actually was a real party in interest or privy of Unified Patents.
CAFC 的意见首先提到 Acoustic Tech., Inc. 但是，专利复审委员会并没有就苹果公司是否实际上是 Unified Patents 的真正利益方或私有方的问题做出裁决。
Turning to Apple’s appeal of the decision on claims 11 and 13, the court rejected Apple’s arguments that the Board misapplied “the legal standard for obviousness by only looking to the explicit disclosures” of the relevant prior art reference instead of the prior art “in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; and said the PTAB failed to “engage in reasoned decision making in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).”
关于苹果公司就权利要求 11 和 13 的裁决提出的上诉，法院驳回了苹果公司的论点，即专利复审委员会错误地应用了 “显而易见性的法律标准，只考虑了相关现有技术参考文献的明确披露”，而不是“根据本领域普通技术人员的知识 ”考虑现有技术；法院还称，专利复审委员会没有 “做出合理的裁决，违反了《行政程序法》（APA）”。
The CAFC said the Board in part relied on the petition’s “lack of analysis” about how the prior art “(with or without the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) would apply to the claim construction that Apple had advocated for” and also disagreed with Apple’s argument that the Board violated the APA by ignoring much of Apple’s evidence. The opinion explained that “Apple overstates what the Board ignored,” and said “it applied a reasoned analysis for rejecting [Apple’s] arguments.” The court conceded that “the Board did not expressly explain its thoughts on the relevance of low-cost communications,” but said “there is no requirement that the Board expressly discuss each and every negative and positive piece of evidence lurking in the record to evaluate a cursory argument,” citing Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and Yeda Rsch. and Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
联邦巡回上诉法院（CAFC）指出，专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB）部分基于苹果公司请愿书中“未充分论证现有技术（无论是否结合本领域普通技术人员的知识）应如何适用于苹果所主张的权利要求解释”，同时驳回了苹果关于“PTAB忽视其大量证据构成违反《行政程序法》（APA）”的论点。法院在判决意见中阐明：“苹果公司过度渲染了PTAB所忽略的内容……该委员会已通过合理分析驳回了其主张。” 尽管CAFC承认“PTAB未明确阐述其对低成本通信技术相关性的考量”，但强调“法律并不要求PTAB必须逐条讨论记录中潜藏的每项正反证据来评估一项缺乏实质的论点”，并援引Novartis AG诉Torrent Pharms. Ltd.案, 853 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 及 Yeda研发公司诉Mylan制药公司案, 906 F.3d 1031, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 作为先例支持。
With respect to Gesture’s cross-appeal that the Board’s decision finding claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 were unpatentable was not supported by substantial evidence, however, the CAFC rejected Gesture’s arguments and ultimately affirmed the finding of obviousness.
关于 Gesture 提出的交叉上诉，即专利复审委员会认定权利要求 1、7、12 和 14 不具有专利性的决定没有实质性证据支持，然而，CAFC 驳回了 Gesture 的论点，并最终确认了显而易见性的认定。