2015年12月22日 星期二

禁反言與用詞"mounted/engaging"討論(專利用詞討論七) - Felix v. Honda Motor (Fed. Cir. 2009)

資訊出處前言:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/12/amgen-v-hoechst-fed-cir-2006.html

(雖此案例曾經討論過,但是與時俱進,總有更新,仍值得一提)

用詞解析7 - Mounted 等
解析案例 - Felix v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 562 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

專利資訊:
原告/上訴人:MARK D. FELIX
被告/被上訴人:AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
系爭專利:U.S. Patent No. 6,155,625 (the “’625 patent”)

緣起:原告Felix於District Court for the District of Kansas對美國本田提出侵權告訴,地院於簡易判決中作出沒有文義侵害的判決,因為審查歷史禁反言而不適用均等論

專利範圍解釋可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/blog-post.html

Claim 6就是對Honda提告的系爭專利請求項:
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.
系爭專利關於Pickup Truck的後方車斗防水設計,解釋專利範圍簡單可看以下截圖,有關系爭請求項6中「"a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position"」的解釋,看來十分安全,中文約略為:『防水墊片/襯墊"mounted(裝設)"於凸緣(flange)上,在車斗蓋閉合時,連接(engaging)在蓋上』。


系爭專利在審查過程中的修正概要可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/felix-v-honda.html

地方法院階段:
當Felix提出侵權訴訟時,認定Honda的貨卡侵害系爭專利Claim 6,貨卡的後車斗可掀起的防水蓋具有蓋體(lid)、襯墊/墊圈( gasket)與凸緣(flange),繪製圖示如下。

在文義上,Honda貨卡後車斗的襯墊位置(以下左圖A, B,固定在蓋體上不同於'625案的圖4的襯墊18放在凸緣16上,如下右圖。



在地院Markman聽證時,地方法院解釋專利範圍時,解釋請求項中「mounted」指的是「固定(securely affixed or fastened to)」(但專利權人解釋為「positioned」);「engaging」為「接在一起與相扣(coming together and interlocking)」(但專利權人解釋為「contacting or bring together」)。對此解釋,Honda提出簡易判決,主張文義侵害不成立,且在均等論下侵權不成立。

地院也隨即決定Honda貨卡在凸緣上並未有防水襯墊(因為是裝在蓋體上),因此並未落入專利範圍中,在簡易判決中裁決文義侵害不成立

接著判斷是否適用均等論?這部分自然是考量系爭專利審查歷史禁反言,因為「襯墊的限制」為取得專利的實質技術特徵,因此對此產生禁反言,地院作出侵權不成立的決定

CAFC階段:
對於地院的判決,原告上訴CAFC。

CAFC首先聲明解釋專利範圍的態度:
"Claim construction is an issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), that we review de novo, Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). We determine the ordinary and customary meaning of undefined claim terms as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, using the methodology in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “[T]he court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)."
(相關案例討論可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html

CAFC判決書中對此案審查歷史有詳盡的描述,修正的目的很重要,此系爭專利的修正是要克服根據先前技術作出顯而易知的核駁理由。在侵權訴訟中,在沒有文義侵害的決定後,專利權人Felix主張請求項中「mounted」或是「mounting」描述兩個元件的相對位置關係,仍有均等論適用,而非固定(affixing或是fastening)的連接關係,透過說明書與請求項語言的描述支持這個說法。

法官從審查歷史、字典、其他請求項的描述來解釋這個連接關係。

解釋專利範圍:
[MOUNTED]
CAFC雖認為此用語在地院解釋過窄,因為一般襯墊、車斗的設計就不是固定的連接關係,但是,Felix系爭專利說明書、請求項就還是這麼地描述,因此CAFC同意地院解釋。
"The specification therefore consistently uses “mounted” to mean “securely affixed or fastened to.”"

CAFC對於專利用語解釋的態度是:請求項用語一般適用整篇專利,在某請求項中用語的使用可以同時闡釋其他請求項的相同用語。
"...claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims..."

[ENGAGING]
地院解釋「engaging」為"coming together and interlocking"。

說明書使用"engaging"描述襯墊與蓋體的關係,使用了副詞"sealingly"(密封),這也是襯墊的一般功能,
"...gasket 18 sealingly engaging the lid 22..."

但說明書、審查歷史並未建議解釋為"interlocking",CAFC法官解釋為「coming together to form a seal」。

文義侵害:(Literal Infringement)
系爭專利範圍在文字上有否讀到被告侵權物品,在本文以上(或之前報導)討論已經十分明確,Honda貨卡襯墊與蓋體與凸緣的連接關係就是不同於系爭專利。文義侵害不成立

均等論:(Doctrine of Equivalents)
CAFC使用均等論的態度是:
"The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes."

均等論的適用,自然是來自Festo判例,因為審查歷史的修正產生的禁反言限制了專利請求項發明的均等範圍,但仍會討論修正專利範圍或答辯的當下是否「已經預見」將來可以合理預期的範圍,如果有此可預見性(foreseeability),禁反言將限制專利範圍,如果沒有預見,均等論可能還是可以適用。

相關討論在:
FESTO案例 - FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., et al.(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/festo-festo-corp-v-shoketsu-kinzoku.html

FESTO判例之禁反言適用的例外討論 - Cross Medical v. Medtronic (Fed. Cir. 2007)(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/10/festo-cross-medical-v-medtronic-fed-cir.html

對於專利權人是否可預見時,有爭議,CAFC轉向「Presumption of Surrender」的議題。

放棄範圍的推定:(Presumption of Surrender)

討論到專利權人是否有放棄任何專利範圍,就看專利答辯時的修正與答辯的審查歷史,審查過程中,系爭專利至少經歷兩次的修正,在修正/刪除特定權利範圍時,CAFC法官認為專利權人已經拋棄某些範圍,特別是刪除範圍的目的是要獲准專利,特別是襯墊相關的限制,因此,產生審查歷史禁反言。

"We therefore hold that the presumption of prosecution history estoppel attaches when a patentee cancels an independent claim and rewrites a dependent claim in independent form for reasons related to patentability..."

當申請人修正專利範圍是將附屬項改寫為獨立項,也就表示放棄了獨立項的範圍,也就適用Presumption of Surrender

"“[W]hen a claim is rewritten from dependent into independent form and the original independent claim is cancelled . . . the surrendered subject matter is defined by the cancellation of independent claims that do not include a particular limitation and the rewriting into independent form of dependent claims that do include that limitation."

案例涉及:
附屬項的均等論討論 - Honeywell International, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.(CAFC)(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/09/honeywell-international-inc-v-hamilton.html

"[I]t frequently happens that patentees surrender more through amendment than may have been absolutely necessary to avoid particular prior art. In such cases, we have held the patentees to the scope of what they ultimately claim, and we have not allowed them to assert that claims should be interpreted as if they had surrendered only what they had to."

最後認定,推定原告Felix拋棄了部分請求項範圍,使得被告侵權物並未落入專利範圍中。侵權不成立

my two cents:
我覺得這句話頗為重要:
"...claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims..."

"mounted"其實是不錯的連接關係用語,只是申請人在撰寫專利時就沒有別的解釋,而且反覆使用很窄的描述,因此,即便使用了有解釋空間的用語,也無濟於事。

"engaging"用來解釋連接關係也是不錯的用語,不過,解釋專利時還是會看技術本身(物品實際用途),不會因為使用有解釋空間的用語而會有較廣的解釋。

"mounted"在地方法院解釋為「固定」,而且是牢牢地扣住。但此解釋確實有點過窄,但是又涉及系爭專利說明書自己也描述很窄,因此也無法有過廣的解釋,因此,說明書的實施例描述太重要了。

雖本篇討論專利用詞,但核心還是直指均等論的適用,老話一句,禁反言真是一體的兩面,一方面要獲准專利,一方面又要抓侵權,這個議題一直不斷地發生。

判決文(April 10, 2009):
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/08-1367.pdf
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/pq6zhjeedaisz3eh4qzwazflw4n2ibpc

其他參考:

本部落格曾報導Felix v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 562 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009),連結如下,當時討論到審查歷史產生專利範圍解釋限制的禁反言議題,自然也就有本次專利用詞討論的「mounted」解釋。
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/blog-post.html(一個因為權利範圍限縮而喪失均等解釋的案例)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/felix-v-honda.html(接續前篇,有關"mounted"解釋)

"在此訴訟中,Felix提出Honda的In-Bed Trunk侵害該專利,所有元件差不多一致,只有襯墊(gasket)的位置不同,辯論過程中,地方法院認為In-Bed Trunk為「mounted」,解釋為「securely affixed or fastened to」,而並非如系爭專利中安裝於凸緣而具有可移動的樣態(a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position.),如「engaging」,意思為「coming together and interlocking」,也就是,In-Bed Trunk並不具有安裝固定於凸緣的襯墊(a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange),不符合文義侵害的條件"

Ron

沒有留言: