理论上来看，Provisional patent application（临时申请）没有公开，所以不满足Prior Art的条件，但是根据35 U.S.C.相关条款，及USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure相关指引，可以主张Provisional patent application申请日的优先权。根据相关案例，的确有IPR案例中援引Provisional patent application的情况，而且在符合某些条件的情况下，Provisional patent application在IPR程序中可以发挥类似Prior Art的功能，比如在DynamicDrinkware LLC v. National Graphics Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (2015)一案中，Federal Circuit认为如果专利无效案的申请方主张法院支持earlier filing date of Provisional patent application，应当证明其所援引的Provisional patent application提供了“adequate written description and enablement support, pursuant to Section 112 of the Patent Act”。但是该证明标准较高，实务中有一定的难度。

1.关于Provisional application的法律规定

首先，澳大利亚官方接受Provisional application date可以作为priority date[1]。

其次，根据35 U.S. Code § 102(a), “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless …..(b) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”. 根据该条规定，如果拟无效专利在另一个专利中被描述，且该专利是在拟无效专利的effective filing date之前effectively filed，那么也可以作为挑战其新颖性的依据。

关于“effectively filed”的具体含义，根据USPTO的Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2152.05：“international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the effectively filed date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”，根据35 U.S. Code § 102(d)(2), 关于如何认定现有技术的effectively filed date, 规定如下：“such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application…. if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119…as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter”,即如果可以根据s119享有优先权，那么最早提交申请的日期可认定为effectively filed date。

根据35 U.S. Code § 119(3)(1), “An application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in a provisional application filed under section 111(b), by an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application filed under section 111(b), if the application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 is filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the provisional application..”可以理解为，提交Provisional application之后12个月内提交正式申请的，那么提交Provisional application可有优先权。这个规定，和澳大利亚的上述规定也是一致的。

此外，根据Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 211.05 Sufficiency of Disclosure in Prior-Filed Application [R-08.2017] A.Claiming the Benefit of Provisional Applications “Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application”.即Provisional application如果主张优先权，应满足“adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application”的条件。

又根据EMPE 901.05 (Foreign Patent Documents) II.C,关于外国专利文件的Publication of Contents of Pending Applications所述，“some countries publish a notice giving certain particulars in their official journal, and thereafter, any one may see the papers at the patent office or order copies. This procedure is referred to as “laying open for public inspection.” There is no printed publication of the specification, although an abstract may be published in printed form. If anyone can inspect or obtain copies of the laid open application, then it is sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a “publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b). The full application is thus available as prior art as of either the date of publication of its notice or its laying open to public inspection if this is a later date. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981).”

2.关于Provisional application的案例法

在案例法中，一般都是把Provisional application作为一个defense，但是近年来也有案例中把Provisional application作为一个无效对方专利的武器。

在Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)一案中，United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.不支持IPR 申请人关于其Provisional application作为Prior art的请求，法院认为申请人对其Provisional application和reference patent之间的比对负举证责任，并且应证明Provisional application支持reference patent的权利要求，“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with§112”，本案中，因原告仅仅将Provisional application和拟无效专利进行比对，而没有将Provisional application和reference patent，故法院认为申请人没有履行举证义务。简单来说，Provisional application需要提供“adequate written description and enablement support, pursuant to Section 112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 112，for the claims of an asserted reference.”

在Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017)一案中，Federal Circuit进一步明确了Provisional application可享有Priority的标准，本案中，无效申请人援引了两个PCT专利申请：Novartis (WO 2008/12563) and Schering (WO 2009/055783)，两者的申请日都晚于拟无效专利的优先权日，但是两者都主张其Provisional application的优先权，而该日期早于拟无效专利的优先权日。法院认为Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. 仍旧适用本案，即申请人需证明“PCT applications were enabled by the provisional application”，因为其没有提供相关证明，因此法院不支持其无效主张。

在Apple v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson IPR2022-00348一案中，USPTO进一步明确了通过Provisional application主张更早优先权的具体标准。Apple公司对某专利发起IPR，Apple所援引的两个对比专利的申请日都晚于拟无效专利的优先权日，Apple主张通过Provisional application将两个作为Prior art的对比专利的优先权日提前到拟无效专利的优先权日之前，但是USPTO对该IRP申请拒绝立案，在拒绝立案裁定中，USPTO认为Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.中确立的以Provisional application为依据主张优先权日的标准应符合两个步骤：(1) 申请人应证明Provisional application’s written description [provides] support for the claims of the [later] patent”; (2) 其次，申请人还应证明 the “subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional application”。这两个要素缺一不可，USPTO认为Apple公司虽然证明了第1点，但是没有证明第2点，因此不同意IPR立案。

从以上案例中能看出，在IPR无效程序中，可以提交对比专利的Provisional application作为申请人主张优先权的证据，同样适用于PCT专利。但是申请人对于Provisional application和对比专利是否符合35 U.S.C. 112标准有较高的证明责任，实务中完成该证明责任难度较大。

---

[1] https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/how-to-apply-for-a-patent/provisional-patents