美國專利商標局行政體系下，於2011年創設兼具準司法審判性質的「專利審判及上訴委員會」(PTAB) 和「多方複審」(IPR) 制度，其旨在民事訴訟外形塑造具公眾審查色彩、淘汰品質不佳專利。多方複審過程費用較為低廉、且時程更為迅速的行政程序作為法院訴訟的替代方案，以減少聯邦法院體系負擔。該程序的進行均採取兩階段結構，除了「審判」階段之外，與我國舉發程序最大不同點是設有「申請立案」階段。自2017年開始，PTAB以General Plastic和NHK-Fintiv等政策，對連續申請案件和平行程序的案件行使裁量權拒絕立案之決定，引起了很大的反響。
本文聚焦討論美國複審程序中的申請立案階段程序和相關法規制度進行說明，進而對PTAB依據314(a)條行使裁量權拒絕立案的案例及其衍生的問題做深入的探討，並且以中立的角度分別擬議兩個替代因素來平衡目前的General Plastic 因素和NHK-Fintiv因素，以及對於日後在美國提出IPR申請的公司在面對PTAB行使裁量權立案審查時，提供一有效的應因對策，期許台灣公司面對國際企業的專利圍堵戰時，能適時應用多方複審制度，將有機會藉由挑戰專利有效性而獲得談判籌碼，甚至奪回市場主導權。

Under the administrative system of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board” (PTAB) and “Inter Partes Review” (IPR) with quasi-judicial nature were created in 2011, which aims to shape the appearance of civil litigation with the color of public scrutiny and eliminate low-quality patents, an administrative procedure that is less expensive and more expeditious as an alternative to court litigation to reduce the burden on the federal court system. The IPR is a less expensive and more expeditious administrative procedure that serves as an alternative to court litigation to reduce the burden on the federal court system. The procedure is carried out in two phases. Apart from the "trial" phase, the biggest difference from the patent invalidation procedure in our country is that there is a "petition" phase. Since 2017, the PTAB has adopted the policies of General Plastic and NHK-Fintiv factors to exercise its discretion to deny IPR petitions for serial petitions and parallel proceedings, which has caused great repercussions.
This article focuses on discussing the petition phase and related laws and regulations in IPR procedure, and then provides an in-depth discussion of the cases in which the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution of the IPR petition under § 314(a) and its derived issues, and proposes two alternative factors from a neutral point of view to balance the current “General Plastic” and “NHK-Fintiv” factors, and provide an effective countermeasure for companies that file IPR petitions in the United States in the future when facing the PTAB's exercise of discretionary denials. It is hoped that Taiwanese companies will be able to file the IPR procedure in a timely manner when facing the patent containment war of international companies, and will have the opportunity to gain bargaining chips by challenging the validity of patents, and even regain market dominance.

一、 中文
(一) 專書
1. 楊智傑(2018)，《美國專利法與重要判決》，第2版，台北：五南。
(二) 期刊
1. 朱浩筠，美國專利舉發制度及其相關爭議問題簡介－以多方複審(IPR)案件為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第213期，2016年9月。
2. 陳在方，論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效，交大法學評論，第2期，2017年12月。
3. 劉國讚，從美國IPR立案制度探討我國雙軌專利無效制度之發展，專利師，第44期，2021年1月。
4. 蔡佳穎，美國專利多方複審程序與領證後複審程序之概述，科技法律透析，第 28 卷第 4 期，2016年4月15日。
(三) 學位論文
1. 王偉哲，美國發明法下之專利有效性-以專利審理暨訴願委員會為中心，國立臺灣大學論文，2017年。
2. 何祥任，美國專利侵權訴訟中專利無效程序與多方複審制度之比較研究，國立政治大學，2020年。
3. 李彥旻，美國專利領證後複審制度之研究-兼論臺灣之專利舉發制度，國立雲林科技大學論文，2015年。
4. 城紫菁，評析美國發明法案之專利多方複審制度之執行成效，東海大學論文，2017年。
5. 黃婷翊，美國專利複審、再審制度與侵權X訴訟之關聯，國立雲林科技大學論文，2016年。
6. 劉冠妤，專利核准後公眾審查制度之研究─以美國、歐洲及台灣相關法制比較為中心，國立政治大學論文，2013年。
(四) 網路資源
1. Gary Hnath、Bryan Nese和张婧，详解多方复审（IPR）程序 (2017-08-01) ，檢自：https://www.worldip.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=83&id=902 (最後瀏覽日：2020-05-06)。
2. 朱翊瑄，何謂「美國專利審理暨訴願委員會（PTAB）」? (2018-11) ，檢自: https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=8144 (最後瀏覽日：2022-04-04) 。
3. 李秉燊，風行草偃：USPTO持續提高專利複審的立案門檻，2021年3月，檢自：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_210324_0501.htm (最後瀏覽日：2022年3月24日)
4. 科技產業資訊室 (iKnow) – Bond，美國科技大廠共同提訟，質疑美國專利商標局依據 ”NHK-Fintiv規則”拒絕對訴訟中專利立案進行多方複審係違法處分 (2020-09-21) ，檢自：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=17042 (最後瀏覽日：2022-05-04)。
5. 美利堅合眾國憲法(1789/04/30公布)，中譯外國法規，司法院，檢自：https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-157-22-dfce6-1.html (最後瀏覽日：2022-04-05)。
6. 美國最高法院針對PTAB行政法官之任命是否違憲做出判決，台一國際智慧財產權事務所，出版品(雙週專利電子報)，第274期2021/7/1，檢自：https://www.taie.com.tw/tc/p4-publications-detail.asp?article_code=03&article_classify_sn=146&sn=1823 (最後瀏覽日：2022-04-05)。
7. 馬宗聖，在美被控專利侵權防禦有道，核准後複審程序成效佳，2014年9月15日，檢自: https://www.dwip.com.tw/exec/msg.php?mid=101&cid=21&mod=show&pid=101&lg=T (最後瀏覽日：2022-05-14) 。
8. 經濟部智財局，我國專利舉發及其救濟制度變革之思考，檢自: https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-886-884431-31fc5-1.html (最後瀏覽日：2022年5月13日) 。
二、 英文
(一) 專書
1. Roger Schechter, John Thomas, Principles of Patent Law, West Academic Publishing; 3rd edition (April 8, 2019)
(二) 期刊
1. Ashley N. Klein & Warren J. Thomas, PTAB Precedential Decision: Putting the Hammer Down on Filing Serial Petitions?, 17 Chi. -Kent J. Intell. Prop. | PTAB Bar Assoc. 29 (2018).
2. Colleen V. Chien & Edward Reines, Why Technology Customers Are Being Sued En Masse for Patent Infringement and What Can Be Done, 49 Wake Forest L. Rev. 235, 243 (2014).
3. Jasper Tran, Matthew Chung, David Maiorana & Matthew Johnson, Discretionary Denials of IPR Institution, 19 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 253 (2020).
4. Kelly A. Welsh, INSTITUTION DENIED: THE EVOLUTION OF DISCRETIONARY DENIALS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) SINCE APPLE INC. V. FINTIV, INC., 71 Am. U. L. Rev. 741 (2021).
5. Nathan Sportel, Did Sotera Stipulations Solve the Fintiv Criticisms?, 21 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 14 (2022).
6. Scott Seeley & Tim Seeley, Establishment and Use of Non-Exclusive Factors to Deny Institution Under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), 20 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 169 (2021).
(三) 網路資源
1. Adam Hess, ITC Section 337: Tips for Avoiding Discretionary Denials at the PTAB (2021-09-30), Retrieved from https://www.iptechblog.com/2021/09/itc-section-337-tips-for-avoiding-discretionary-denials-at-the-ptab/
2. Andrew Rapacke, IPR Can Be Expensive, But Can Be Worth It, Retrieved from https://arapackelaw.com/inter-partes-review/inter-partes-review-worth-it/
3. Britain Eakin, As Attys Sharpen PTAB Strategies, Fintiv Denials Are Falling (2021-10-27), Retrieved from https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/news/attys-sharpen-ptab-strategies-fintiv-denials-are-falling
4. Charles W. Shifley, How Many Words Do You Have to Challenge Each Patent Claim in IPR? Retrieved from https://www.martindale.com/matter/asr-2239666.IPR.pdf
5. Comments of Apple Inc. (2020), Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1232020AppleInc.pdf
6. COMMENTS OF THE HIGH TECH INVENTORS ALLIANCE (2020), Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1232020HighTechInventorsAlliance.pdf
7. Comments of TSMC, Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1232020TaiwanSemiconductorManufacturingCompanyLtd.pdf
8. David Cavanaugh, Joshua Stern, Michael Smith, and Greg Israelsen, Current PTAB Guidance on Multiple IPR Petitions (2019-09-13), Retrieved from https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/20190913-current-ptab-guidance-on-multiple-ipr-petitions
9. Elizabeth Rader, Preserving Due Process in Approaches to Narrowing Claims in Multi-Patent Law¬suits, IPWATCHDOG (Sept. 8, 2019), Retrieved from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/09/08/preserving-due-pro¬cess-in-approaches-to-narrowing-claims-in-multi-patent-lawsuits/id=113031/
10. Evan S. Day, Fewer Bites at the IPR Apple? Impact of Recent Decisions and Guidance on Multiple Petitions (2020), Retrieved from https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/fewer-bites-at-the-ipr-apple-impact-of-recent-decisions-and-guidance-on-multiple-petitions.html
11. J. Jonas Anderson & Paul R. Gugliuzza, Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases, 71 Duke Law Journal 419-497 (2021) at 459, Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol71/iss2/3
12. Jason Rantanen, How the West Became the East: The Patent Litigation Explosion in the Western District of Texas (2020-09-15), Retrieved from https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/09/litigation-explosion-district.html
13. Jennifer Bachorik Ph.D., Matthew Johnson, Follow on Petition Denied for Implicit “Significant Relationship” (2020-07-24), Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/follow-on-petition-denied-for-implicit-70262/
14. Jennifer Bush, Administrative Patent Judges: Not Your Typical Federal Judge (July 24, 2014), Retrieved from https://www.fenwick.com/insights/publications/administrative-patent-judges-not-your-typical-federal-judge
15. Laura Witbeck, Sarah Fredrick, Are PTAB's Discretionary Factors for Denying Institution of IPR Legal? (2021-01-31), Retrieved from https://www.obwbip.com/newsletter/are-ptabs-discretionary-factors-for-denying-institution-of-ipr-legal
16. Leahy And Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Support American Innovation And Reduce Litigation, Retrieved from https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-and-cornyn-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-support-american-innovation-and-reduce-litigation
17. Matthew Johnson, PTAB Denies Co-Defendant’s Petitions As Unfair Follow-On Petitions (2019-05-16), Retrieved from https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/ptab-denies-co-defendants-petitions-as-unfair-follow-on-petitions/
18. Nisha Gera, Sheila Mortazavi, NHK-Fintiv Frustration: Status of the Current Challenges and the Uncertain Fate of the PTAB’s Discretionary Denial of IPRs (2022-02-18), Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nhk-fintiv-frustration-status-of-the-5720711/
19. PTAB Trial Statistics, FY21 End of Year Outcome Roundup, IPR, PGR, CBM, retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_aia_fy2021__roundup.pdf
20. PTO, PTAB PPAC Update (Nov. 19, 2020), Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/20201119_PPAC_PTAB_Update.pdf
21. Q4 in Review: NPEs Cap Off a Busy 2021 as SEP Policies Evolve in the US and UK (2022-01-11), Retrieved from https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q4-in-review-npes-cap-off-a-busy-2021-as-sep-policies-evolve-in-the-us-and-uk/
22. Reexam Filings Up by 51%, Likely Due to NHK-Fintiv Rule (2022-01-19), Retrieved from https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/2021-reexam-filings-up-by-51-due-to-nhk-fintiv-rule/
23. Revisions to standard operating procedures: paneling and precedential decisions, USPTO, retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/procedures/revisions-standard-operating
24. Russ Krajec, Current Patent Litigation Costs Are Between $2.3 to $4M - from the BlueIron blog (2020-07-10), Retrieved from https://newsdirect.com/news/current-patent-litigation-costs-are-between-2-3-to-4m-from-the-blueiron-blog-830029807?category=Healthcare
25. Ryan Davis, Fintiv Rule Challenges Face Long Odds After Fed. Circ. Ruling, LAW360, retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/1365655/fintiv-rule-challenges-face-long-odds-after-fed-circ-ruling
26. Samson Vermont, AIPLA Survey of Costs of Patent Litigation and Inter Partes Review (Jan. 30, 2017), Retrieved from https://www.patentattorney.com/press-center/aipla-survey-of-costs-of-patent-litigation-and-inter-partes-review/
27. Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24, 2020), Retrieved from https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-trial-dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/
28. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), A BILL, Retrieved from https://tiponet.tipo.gov.tw//downloads/module030/information_5_4.pdf
29. Tammy J. Dunn, The PTAB's New "Precedential Opinion Panel" (2019-01-09), retrieved from https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/770186/the-ptab39s-new-precedential-opinion-panel
30. The PTAB Sees a Relatively Small Percentage of Patents Litigated in District Court (2020-09-16), Retrieved from https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/the-ptab-sees-a-relatively-small-percentage-of-patents-litigated-in-district-court/
31. Trial statistics, USPTO, retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/statistics
32. Tyler R. Train, Proposed Alternative PTAB Discretionary Denial Analysis in View of Serial Petitions (2020-11-19), Retrieved from https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/articles-and-briefings/proposed-alternative-ptab-discretionary-denial-analysis-view-serial-petitions
33. Tyler R. Train, Proposed Alternative PTAB Discretionary Denial Factors In View of Co-Pending Parallel Litigation (2020-10-02), Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposed-alternative-ptab-discretionary-denial-factors-view-co-pending-parallel
34. USPTO, An Analysis of Multiple Petitions in AIA Trials (Oct. 24, 2017), Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Chat_with_the_Chief_Boardside_Chat_Multiple_Petition_Study_20171024.pdf
35. USPTO, Orange Book/biologics study update through June 2021, retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PTABOBbiologicpatentstudy8.10.2021draftupdatedthruJune2021.pdf
36. USPTO, PTAB designates two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative on discretion to institute review, Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2019/ptab-designates-two-decisions-precedential-and-one-decision-informative
(四) 判決
1. Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. IPR2018-01356, 2019 WL 462483, (P.T.A.B. Feb 5, 2019).
2. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 2–15 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020).
3. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. IPR2019-00112, 2019 WL 1575164, (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2019).
4. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2020-00854, 2020 WL 6323533, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020).
5. Apple Inc. v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2019-00358, Paper 12.
6. Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corporation, v. Andrei Iancu, 5:20-cv-6128, (N.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2020).
7. Apple, Inc v. Immersion Corporation, No. IPR2017-01310, 2017 WL 5067484, (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2017).
8. Apple, Inc v. Zomm, LLC, No. IPR2019-01030, 2019 WL 6999540, (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2019).
9. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792, 804 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
10. Atlas Copco Airpower N.V. v. Kaeser Kompressoren SE, IPR2015-01421, slip op. at 6–8 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2015) (Paper 8).
11. Becton, Dickson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017).
12. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp., 136 S. Ct. 2508, 195 L.Ed.2d 837 (2016).
13. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2139 (2016).
14. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., No. 3:17- cv-05806-RS.
15. Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 (Mar. 17, 2020).
16. Found. Med., Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc., IPR2019-00652, Paper 12.
17. General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017).
18. Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC., IPR2020-00498.
19. Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-00449, (PTAB July 27, 2016) (Paper 9).
20. Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01188, Paper 9.
21. NetApp, Inc. v. RealTime Data LLC, IPR2017-01195 (P.T.A.B. March 30, 2017).
22. NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., Case IPR2018-00752 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (Paper 8).
23. NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., IPR2016-00134 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9).
24. OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC., IPR2021-01064.
25. PayPal, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, IPR2019-00887, Paper 21.
26. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Lux. S.A., IPR2017-01797, Paper 8.
27. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC, IPR2018-01554, Paper 9.
28. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018).
29. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12. (December 1, 2020).
30. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017).
31. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., 140 S. Ct. 1367, 206 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2020).
32. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-01538, Paper 11 (Mar. 5, 2019).
33. United Fire Protection Corp. v. Engineered Corrosion Sols., LLC, IPR2018-00991, Paper 10 (Nov. 15, 2018).
34. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 2021 WL 2519433.
35. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods. Inc. IPR2019-00064 00065 00085 (Paper 10).
36. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (Paper 11).
37. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation (6:19-cv-00254).
38. Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1367 (2018) (en banc).
(五) 政府公報和政府會議文書
1. 77 Federal Register (2012).
2. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019.
3. H. Rept. 112-98 - AMERICA INVENTS ACT.
4. PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2011--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 157 (2011-03-08).
5. Request for Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (2020).
6. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
7. U.S. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 55 (2019).
8. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Report to Congress on Inter Partes Reexamination (2004).