（專利爭議階段修正的選擇影響事後權利範圍的解釋）
汽車公司Honda之前應用一種「lockable in-bed trunk」在小貨卡上，讓原本只是一種開放式的載貨卡車中內建一種可上鎖的空間，可以存放重要的東西，也因為防水，所以可以放入冰塊作為冰桶，還可置放備胎...，十分好用。
有個專利US6,155,625，揭露在貨卡後方承載平台（bed）下方設置有個儲物區，主要爭議專利範圍如下：
6. In combination with a vehicle including a vehicle bed, the improvement of a storage system which includes:
a) an opening formed in the vehicle bed and including an opening rim;
b) a compartment with an interior;
c) said compartment being mounted on said bed with said compartment interior accessible through said opening;
d) a lid assembly including lid mounting means for mounting said lid in covering relation with respect to said opening;
e) a channel formed at the rim of said bed opening and including an inner flange;
f) a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position; and
g) a plurality of drain holes formed in said channel.
其中描述了在平台中區隔的儲物空間，包括：
開口（opening）
隔間（compartment）
蓋子（lid）
開口周圍有開槽（channel），並有一內部凸緣（flange）
密閉用的襯墊在凸緣上（weathertight gasket）
開曹上有洞（hole）
上述專利權人Felix先生提狀告了Honda「lockable in-bed trunk」侵害他的專利，但是他的專利因為權利範圍經過限縮，讓法院認為Honda並無字義侵害（literal infringement），且在均等論的判斷下，也沒有侵權。
主要差異在於，Honda的貨卡上的可上鎖的儲物空間的密封方式（防水、防冷熱）是做在「蓋子」上的四周，而不是用在「凸緣」上（updated 9.6.2010），這一點點差異就輸掉了官司。經過上訴到CAFC，仍是判斷並沒有字義侵害，也因為專利答辯過程產生的歷史禁反言（history estoppel）而不符均等論。
根據法官Linn最後指出的問題，由於答辯過程中，襯墊的範圍拋棄因為修正過程是將主要權利範圍Claims 1, 7刪除，而將附屬項Claim 8改寫為獨立項，而非為了捍衛較大範圍而修改Claim 7，原文供您參考：
原文："We leave open the question of whether the presumption of surrender would have attached as to the gasket limitation if, in response to the first office action, Felix had cancelled both claim 1 and claim 7, and had rewritten claim 8 in independent form, instead of attempting to secure the broader coverage of rewritten claim 7 as an intermediate step."
(updated on May 17) 接續文章：http://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/09/felix-v-honda.html
Ron
Patentlyo（http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/doctrine_of_equivalents/），作者認為相關歷史禁反言可以透過解釋之前的限縮與目前爭議部份無關來克服，只是本案felix並未針對爭點(weathertight gasket)證明解釋修正權利範圍的唯一理由與整個權利範圍修正的過程
沒有留言:
張貼留言