2016年2月25日 星期四

越南專利制度 - 用專利學地理


越南全名是「越南社會主義共和國」(越南語:Cộng hòa Xã hội Chủ nghĩa Việt Nam),從這面國旗知道,越南是一個共產國家,首都為河內,最大城市為胡志明市。雖為共產國家,相對封閉,卻是很多經濟體的成員國,使得經濟發展充滿想像。


從與鄰國的地圖來看這個國家,距離台灣、中國、菲律賓都很有地緣關係,應該是頗有機會的地方。


越南政府網站:http://www.gov.vn/


越南智慧財產局網站:http://www.noip.gov.vn/


意外越南智慧財產局網站有完整的建制與資訊,這應該與國家朝經濟發展啟動時,智慧財產制度成為一個重要的啟動器,智慧財產制度愈完善,可以鼓勵創新研發,更吸引投資,要建立完善的專利商標制度,就要有友善的資訊取得與申請、獲准的機制。看來,從網站設計開始是很棒的起點。

專利申請文件:
(1)申請書
(2)說明書文件、範例、發明或新型請求項範圍、摘要等內容
(3)代理人委託書
(4)申請人證明文件
(5)優先權文件
(6)費用
(申請時專利說明書可以外文送件,再候補越南文)

專利審查流程:
(官方)
(1)齊備前述文件後,取得申請日
(2)以PCT進入越南,可保有最早申請日後31個月主張優先權的時間
(3)先申請原則
(4)申請日後一個月內進行形式審查,可給予申請人補充不符形式的部分,包括修正
(5)公開
(6)自申請日後36個月內應提出請求實際審查,42個月內繳費
(7)經接收到實際審查請求後,智慧局會於12個月內作出審查報告
(8)發出審查結果後,包括核准或核駁
(9)核駁意見通之後,給予申請人2個月的答辯期限,但可延長
(10)若專利經核駁答辯、修正後,仍不符規定,即發出核駁審定
(11)申請人可針對審定結果提出訴願;或提出訴訟
(12)若專利獲准,應繳付領證費用

比較清楚的流程可參考:http://dnlaw.com.vn/ip-resources/patent/flowchart-basic-procedure
SangChe-Tieng Anh

以上來自D&N International的流程圖明確表示,在形式審查或實際審查之後,若有不服,可於一次訴願之後上訴至法院。

商標審查流程:
(官方)
(1)商標申請
(2)先申請主義
(3)形式審查
(4)修正
(5)公開
(6)實際審查
(7)核駁、答辯、登錄

比較清楚的流程可參閱:http://dnlaw.com.vn/ip-resources/trademark/flowchart-basic-procedure


WIPO統計數據:
各項IP申請量逐年上升:


專利申請案逐年上升,主力仍為外國申請人:


專利類別前幾名為:家用品、工具機、醫藥、紡織等。


專利實施也不少:


越南有新型專利制度,但因為多數申請人為外國人,申請量不多,也間接表示過去台灣、中國人的佈局比較少


商標申請蓬勃發展,越南當地人為主:


(數據上應比較WIPO更準確)越南智慧財產局2014年度報告 (updated on Feb. 25, 2016)
逐年增加的專利申請案:


申請人國別最多的是日本,其次是美國、越南、韓國與德國:


2014年前十名申請人國別,包括發明與新型案,中國第7名,台灣列於第8名:


申請量逐年上升,申請人以外國人為主,技術類別以化學案為主,再如機械工程、電子工程等:


商標申請案逐年上升:


商標申請人最多的是美國、日本與中國,再是韓國與泰國:


IP申請類別:


本部落格其他報導:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/12/blog-post_25.html(東協國家專利申請討論)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/12/blog-post_17.html(有關ASPEC)

其他參考:
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/越南

部分資訊來源:http://dnlaw.com.vn/

Ron

2016年2月24日 星期三

OK Google ! - 產品與專利

個人的使用經驗覺得,Google的語音辨識能力比Apple的好,用手機語音輸入,常常都可以講完後不用校正就直接送出。若以語音助理來看,我的操作是,按住耳機上的「通話鍵」,手機就會要求你語音輸入...,結果...看手機而定。





Android版的Siri(或許Google不喜歡如此稱她)相關美國專利如US 8768712(申請號:14/096,359;申請日:12-04-2013),以此案衍生的後續佈局包括(資料來源:PAIR):

14/220,781(申請日:03-20-2014)
14/990,462(申請日:01-07-2016)
14/991,092(申請日:01-08-2016)
PCT/US14/31475(進入PCT,申請日:03-21-2014)

有PCT案,顯然Google有意佈局更多國家,以最早申請日12-04-2013為準,PCT優先權到期日為06-04-2016。

US 8768712揭露根據部分熱字啟始動作的技術,主要技術如Claim 1揭露,接收語音數據,判斷當中對應到熱字的初始部分(initial portion of a hotword),顯然就是要找到語音數據中的關鍵(或是特徵),並以此啟始一或多個動作,並執行出來。

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving audio data;
determining that an initial portion of the audio data corresponds to an initial portion of a hotword;
in response to determining that the initial portion of the audio data corresponds to the initial portion of the hotword, selecting, by one or more computers, from among a set of one or more actions that are performed when the entire hotword is detected, a subset of the one or more actions; and
causing one or more actions of the subset to be performed.
專利範圍的規劃如常見的軟體專利佈局:
18. A system comprising: 
one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: 
receiving audio data; 
determining that an initial portion of the audio data corresponds to an initial portion of a hotword; 
in response to determining that the initial portion of the audio data corresponds to the initial portion of the hotword, selecting, from among a set of one or more actions that are performed when the entire hotword is detected, a subset of the one or more actions; and 
causing one or more actions of the subset to be performed. 

19. A computer-readable storage device storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: 
receiving audio data; 
determining that an initial portion of the audio data corresponds to an initial portion of a hotword; 
in response to determining that the initial portion of the audio data corresponds to the initial portion of the hotword, selecting, from among a set of one or more actions that are performed when the entire hotword is detected, a subset of the one or more actions; and 
causing one or more actions of the subset to be performed. 

其說明書"傳神"地描述如何啟始這個語音服務:
"In some examples, the user 116 says one or more words that the mobile computing device 100 detects. In some examples, the utterance includes one or more hotwords, or partial hotwords, that cause an action to be performed by the mobile computing device 100. As depicted in the illustrated example, the user 116 says "OK Google." The mobile computing device 100 detects the utterance "OK Google" with the audio subsystem 102 appropriately receiving audio data of the utterance "OK Google." "





另一延續案佈局(未核准):14/220,781(申請日:03-20-2014)




前案:
Google語音柱裡的專利在PCT案檢索報告可以看到一件Nokia在2010年申請的先前技術:WO/2012/025784,方法包括:轉換語音頻域訊號為電壓訊號、判斷特徵、比較語音觸發指令的特徵,以及根據比對結果啟始語音使用者介面。


Claims

1 . A method comprising;
converting an audio frequency domain signal into one or more voltage signals;
determining the characteristics of the one or more voltage signals;
comparing the characteristics of the one or more voltage signals with one or more characteristics of an audio trigger command; and
initiating activation of an audio user interface on the basis of the comparison.

Ron

2016年2月22日 星期一

電話限制選擇要求 - MPEP 812/812.01

筆記

「Telephonic restriction」是審查委員發出正式限制選擇要求之前的動作,但實務上,較少這樣的案例(可能是美國本土外的情況),審查委員可以用電話要求「限制選擇」,但是,如果代理人沒有回覆,或是拒絕口頭回覆,就會用郵寄的。有一些情況不會用電話,如「限制選擇內容複雜」或是「審查委員自己從過去經驗判斷」,就不用電話要求,而用傳統郵寄。


MPEP 812 規範審查委員可以提出限制要求,但若沒有任何一項請求項所載發明在審查委員所屬的技術中心(technology center)中仍為可分類(classifiable),就不能發出限制要求。

MPEP 812 WHO SHOULD MAKE THE REQUIREMENT
...
An examiner should not require restriction in an application if none of the claimed inventions is classifiable in his or her Technology Center. ...

MPEP 812.01 規範電話限制選擇要求
此段規定當審查委員判斷應提出限制要求(requirement for restriction)時,審查委員應規劃出各項權利範圍的連結項與總的發明等項,這裡提到可以電話打到代理人要求口頭選擇(oral election),並包括with/without traverse,並給予3天電話回覆期限,如果代理人沒有回覆,或是拒絕口頭回覆,即以郵寄方式通知。然而,如果限制選擇要求內容複雜,就沒有電話限制要求的需要。或者,審查委員從過去經驗知道不要使用電話提出限制選擇要求。

MPEP 812.01 TELEPHONE RESTRICTION PRACTICE

If an examiner determines that a requirement for restriction should be made in an application, the examiner should formulate a draft of such restriction requirement including an indication of those claims considered to be linking and/or generic. Thereupon, the examiner should telephone the attorney or agent of record and request an oral election, with or without traverse. The examiner should arrange for a second telephone call within a reasonable time, generally within 3 working days, to provide time for the attorney or agent to consider the requirement. If the attorney or agent objects to making an oral election, or fails to respond, a restriction requirement will be mailed, and should contain reference to the unsuccessful telephone call. When an oral election is made, the examiner will then proceed to incorporate into the next Office action a formal restriction requirement including the date of the election, the attorney’s or agent’s name, and a complete record of the telephone interview, followed by a complete action on the elected invention as claimed, including linking and/or generic claims if present. However, no telephone communication need be made where the requirement for restriction is complex, the application is being prosecuted by the applicant pro se, or the examiner knows from past experience that an election will not be made by telephone.

Form paragraphs 8.23 or 8.23.01 should be used to make a telephone election of record.

my two cents:
雖「限制」與「選擇」應該是兩個定義,但是實務上是一個程序,法條雖僅提到「restriction」,但應包括「election」。

這樣看來,美國本地人、代理人,或是國外美國代理人直接代理的情況外,台灣申請人應該比較少接獲到「電話要求限制選擇」,理由一是內容可能是比較複雜,理由二是如果一直是這樣,就會一直這樣(過去經驗)。

Ron

2016年2月19日 星期五

歐洲異議理由過了期限仍應考量其相關性 - 訴願案T 0736/95

歐洲專利公告後9個月內的「異議(opposition)」程序可參考過去報導:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/09/opposition.html

案例「T 0736/95 (Fresh ground of opposition) of 9.10.2000」資訊:
專利權人:AMGEN INC.
異議人:Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
系爭專利:EP0108128
相關法條:99(1), 100(a), (b) and (c), 114(1), 102(3) EPC, Rule: 55(c), 66(1) EPC

系爭專利涉及一種人類伽瑪干擾素(一種抗癌物質)的基因序,專利範圍如下:
  1. [Met⁻¹,des-Cys¹,des-Tyr²,des-Cys³] human gamma interferon.
  2. A DNA sequence encoding [Met⁻¹,des-Cys¹,des-Tyr²,des-Cys³] human gamma interferon.
  3. A polypeptide product of expression of the DNA sequence of claim 2 in a transformed host cell.
相關法條(提出異議的理由):
Article 100102
Grounds for opposition
Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that:
(a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57;
(b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;
(c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under Article 61, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.

案件討論:
「異議制度」讓第三方在專利獲准後的一段時間內可提出專利無效的「異議」理由,此案例提出理由關乎EPC Art. 100(a)(b)(c),包括新穎性、進步性、充分揭露,與請求項範圍超出原說明書記載內容等。

但是在異議階段時,異議人又提出新的異議理由(fresh ground),如Art. 100(c),歐洲審理異議的部門不受理新的異議請求(理由是過了異議期限),於是異議人上訴訴願委員會,在口頭審理程序中,訴願人(原異議人)提出理由主要有:雖然這些新的異議理由沒有在異議通知中提到,但是但仍在異議部門審理之前提出,且其中並未有新的法律或事實意見

參考歐洲擴大訴願委員會案例G 10/91G 1/95,雖然在沒有納入新的法律議題(new legal issue)條件下應受理補充的新的異議理由。在EPC Art. 114(1)規定下,歐洲異議部門也應自主在第三方意見外審理相關事實,於是應在駁回異議理由前先審查這些補充新的理由是否會影響原專利權

"As a consequence, the board of appeal considered that this ground had been part of the legal framework of the opposition and that its admittance into the appeal proceedings would not raise any new legal issue, and decided to examine it."

"Therefore, before declaring it inadmissible, the opposition division should have examined under Article 114(1) EPC whether the ground raised under Article 100(c) EPC could prejudice the maintenance of the patent."

涉及法條:
Article 114
Examination by the European Patent Office of its own motion
(1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts of its own
motion; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided
by the parties and the relief sought.

此案爭議之一是,由於歐洲專利法規定在專利核准公告後9個月內可提出異議程序(opposition),但是如果超過這個期限後提出的異議理由,歐洲擴大訴願委員會(Enlarged Board of Appeal)在過去案例中仍決議,由於異議制度目的是避免無效專利被核准,因此要求審查異議案的部門在駁回異議案以前至少要審查是否異議案所提出新的無效理由是有專利性相關的。

"the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 10/91 recognised that the aim of the patent prosecution to avoid invalid patents comes to the foreground as far as proceedings before the first instance are concerned, thereby indicating that the first instance at least needs to examine whether a fresh ground is relevant. Therefore, in the present case the opposition division should have examined the relevance of the fresh ground raised under Article 100(c) EPC before declaring it inadmissible."


本案訴願決定:
(1) 退回原異議部門審理新的異議理由的關聯性
(2) 異議受理單位有義務審查新的異議理由與系爭專利的相關性
(3) 本案不用進一步新的異議理由(本案為訴願駁回)

結論:
無論如何,第三方提出的"補充"異議理由會被檢驗是否有其專利性相關,但是不見得會受理審查專利性。

訴願案資訊:http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950736ep1.html#q=opposition
訴願案檔案備份:https://app.box.com/s/u37i3c9ls6e3q7uzgh3elngvzxmdrsyu

Ron

2016年2月17日 星期三

用詞"Substantially"與均等範圍討論(專利用詞討論九)- Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2012)

這些用語討論的法院判決資訊得自:https://college.itri.org.tw/SeminarView.aspx?no=28150018&msgno=314659

有關"substantially"的解釋與討論,也可以參考過去報導:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/03/about-claims-xviii.html

Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

案件資訊:
原告/上訴人:Deere & Company
被告/共同上訴人:Bush Hog, LLC & Great Plains Manufacturing Incorporated
系爭專利:US6,052,980

緣起:
US District Court for Southern District of Iowa經解釋系爭專利範圍後,作出被告Bush等"侵權不成立"簡易判決,但其中認為系爭專利沒有因為不明確(35 USC 112)而無效,於是雙方都提出上訴。

系爭專利涉及一種易於清潔的雙壁板旋轉刀具(Easy clean dual wall deck for rotary cutter),有上下壁板,低板"實質平面與水平",高板則是包括比低板高的中間部位,前後部位從中間分別向前斜下,以及向後斜下,到連接部,左右牆結構分別連接低壁板與高壁板,以定義出一個具有扭轉剛性的箱形截面。其中易於清潔的設計是在涵蓋了刀具結構的具有扭轉強度的雙壁板(56, 28)。


"疑似"被告Bush Hog等製作的旋轉刀具截圖如下,圖形取自Bush Hog網站型錄的rotary cutter畫面:http://www.bushhog.com/uploads/documents/BHRazorbackBH4-5-6_PM15.pdf


Claim 1:
1. A rotary cutter deck comprising: 
a lower, substantially planar, horizontal deck wall
an upper deck wall including a central portion elevated above said lower deck wall, and front and rear portions respectively sloped downwardly and forwardly, and downwardly and rearwardly from said central portion into engagement with, and being secured to, said lower deck wall; and 
right- and left-hand end wall structures respectively being joined to right- and left-hand ends of said lower and upper deck walls to thereby define a box section having torsional stiffness.

Claim 6:
6. The rotary cutter deck defined in claim 1 wherein said lower and upper deck walls cooperate to present an upwardly facing deck surface which is smooth and substantially obstruction free from front to back, whereby material may slide or easily be washed off said deck surface, and water will run off said deck surface.


案件討論:

地院階段
針對系爭專利範圍中使用的「being secured to」與「into engagement with」,地方法院解釋「in to engagement with」為「brought into contact with」;「being secured to」為「fastened or attached」。根據這些用語解釋,被告產品中的結構連接關係並沒有落入這些用語的「文義」,而原告原本沒有主張「均等論」之適用,因為是基於地院的解釋,地院裁決侵權不成立。

針對系爭專利範圍的「substantially planar ...」,地院並不認為用語不明確。

判決引用畫面,很清楚表示出爭議中的上下壁板(56, 28),圖形與檔案取自:https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/20851645/deere-amp-co-v-bush-hog-llc-finnegan



CAFC階段
經雙方都上訴後,CAFC審理,認為地院對於以上幾個用語解釋過於狹隘,以下是CAFC的立場,請求項用語應給予一般意義,而不是僅以字面解釋,更不用將說明書描述作為專利範圍的限制
"The district court erroneously construed the term “into engagement with” to require direct contact between the upper and lower deck walls. At the outset, the claim language itself counsels against this narrow interpretation of the term. “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ ... that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.”"
"“[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which [it] appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” While claim terms are understood in light of the specification, a claim construction must not import limitations from the specification into the claims."

其中,CAFC認為地院以「into engagement with」為「直接接觸上下壁板」的解釋有誤,請求項的描述"into engagement with, and being secured to"使得這兩種連接關係有不同的意思,"engagement"可以是一種「非直接」的連接關係,舉例為馬達與齒輪連接時會有另一齒輪的連接關係,而"secured to"則是「直接」的連接關係。除了一般意義如此,說明書也支持這個解釋,即便被告也提出自己的論點,但是這個連接關係涉及裝置具備的扭轉剛性,就是一種非直接連接關係,因此地院對這些用語解釋有誤

其中值得報導的是,在處理「均等論(doctrine of equivalents)」時,法院提出一些澄清,如強調請求項範圍是逐元件(element by element basis)討論是否適用均等論,逐元件討論被告侵權產品是否落入每一項專利元件的均等範圍中。在討論均等論適用時,表示至少有一個專利元件並沒有文義讀取到被告侵權物,因此將討論缺乏的元件是否被等效的裝置或手段所涵蓋

"in every case applying the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claimed element is not literally present in the accused product. The question is “whether an omitted part is supplied by an equivalent device or instrumentality.”"

"Thus, the doctrine of equivalents, by its very nature, assumes that some element is missing from the literal claim language but may be supplied by an equivalent substitute."

然而,法院角色同樣是避免過當使用均等論而解釋超出原來專利權人應得的獨佔權,當被告侵權物包括與系爭專利範圍"對立"的元件,法院可以拒絕判斷均等論之適用,如此可以作出侵權不成立的判決。

由於地院過於狹窄的專利範圍解釋,CAFC否決地院的簡易判決。

"substantially"
"substantially"用語是否明確,法院先表示只有在請求項範圍無法經得起解釋("not amenable to construction"),或是無法解決的模糊("insolubly ambiguous"),才能認定專利範圍不明確。而此案例並未如此產生不明確的問題。


更者,專利範圍解釋涉及申請人Deere在專利審查答辯歷史的說明,這點被告Bush認為系爭專利說明書沒有明確定義「substantially planar」用語,也與答辯歷史的講法矛盾,系爭專利審查答辯時曾經排除如Bowie(US4,724,660)所揭露的雙壁板(如下黃色部分)結構,但法院認為使用"substantially"也沒有那麼不明確,沒有讓相關技術人員無法理解專利範圍。因此法院認為substantially並不會因為用語模糊而不明確,要看該領域技術人員是否能夠理解專利範圍而論定



對於「substantially」用語,法院確認此類用語並不會導致專利範圍不明確而讓相關技術人員無法確認專利範圍。


因此,CAFC認為地院基於錯誤的專利範圍解釋而作出侵權不成立的裁決,撤回簡易判決的決定,發回重審;另同意"substantially"用語明確的決定。

my two cents:
首先,此案例法院確立「均等範圍」對於專利範圍撰寫的意義(本篇重點之一),至少法官認為:請求項用語應給予一般意義,而不是僅以字面解釋,更不用將說明書描述作為專利範圍的限制

法院並沒有否定「substantially」用語,就看使用的地方是否能讓該領域技術人員可以理解專利範圍而定。因此,我認為在某些尺度、結構描述上可以大膽使用"substantially",並且在說明書中明確描述何謂"實質上...",可以有效避免不明確的問題。

最近收到中國專利審查意見,使用「實質上」有不明確的問題,雖說可以解釋,但是再保險起見,又是因為在附屬範圍,仍是建議申請人可以刪除這類的用語。不過,在答辯上應仍有機會成功,至少我自己認為。

另有一例是,發明涉及奈米尺度的技術,其中無法避免地使用「約」、「附近」、「實質上」等用語,曾經處理是被建議使用「在一"寬容度"下為...」,還好這個"寬容度"有描述在說明書中,並且,審查指南也不是沒有支持這類用語,只是有些風險。

判決文:
https://casetext.com/case/deere-co-v-bush-hog-llc-3

http://www.finnegan.com/files/Publication/9c9e2681-0d90-44d0-bb1c-3987e76d3e87/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e56a5087-50e0-4c9b-b704-3e354ef87195/11-1629%2012-4-12.pdf
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/zjnw4rxom4gh4j0enaaz1grzg59i5cbn

Ron

2016年2月16日 星期二

專利核准前的權利與告知 - Rosebud LMS v. Adobe Systems (Fed. Cir. 2015)

此案例「Rosebud LMS v. Adobe Systems (Fed. Cir. 2015)」涉及美國專利法第154(d)條,法條可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/04/blog-post_11.html

美國專利法第154(d)條規範專利獲准前的暫時性權利(provisional right),專利權始於專利領證公告當日,而專利侵權的損害賠償也會針對這天開始的侵權行為計算,不過專利法為了保障專利權人/發明人權益,仍提供一種暫時性權利,就是專利申請案公開到取得專利權之間的"空窗期"的權利,對於這段期間內的侵權行為仍有依法取得合理權利金的適用(領證後6年內可主張),暫時性權利及於美國國內製造、使用、提供販售、販售、進口。

不過,要主張這個暫時性的權利條件是:在專利公開期間已經對於潛在侵權者提出"實際告知(actual notice)"、專利領證公告後6年內主張「合理權利金」、專利獲准的發明與當時公開的申請案請求項範圍"實質相同"。另外,如果是國際申請案,應指定進入美國,並以提出英文翻譯日為準

案件資訊:
專利權人/原告:Rosebud LMS
侵權被告:Adobe Systems
系爭專利:US8,578,280

緣起:
訴訟癥結在於適用美國專利法第154(d)條規定中的「實際告知」,要滿足實際告知的要求,才可以主張暫時性權利。

當要主張暫時性權利時,原告(專利權人)自然是要盡力證明被告已經得知系爭專利公開的事實,此案特別是,原告已經使用系爭專利'280的先前家族專利對此被告提出其他訴訟,讓原告主張被告已經知道本次系爭專利'280的公開事實,因為兩者有相同的說明書內容;原告並主張被告追蹤原告的產品,以及被告律師應知道有系爭專利公開的事實。

雖然以上"旁證"可以作為證明被告已經實際知道系爭專利的公開事實,但是就本案而言,證據還不足以證明被告已經被實際告知。

案例討論:
本案例中,Adobe答辯時,除了要證明原告Rosebud無理由主張專利獲准後的損害賠償,理由是Adobe並非持續使用被告侵權的技術;Adobe亦主張Rosebud無法主張專利獲准前的損害賠償,理由是Adobe聲明並未被實際告知相關專利公開案(actual notice of the published patent application)。

然而,法院在執行discovery前,地院准予Adobe提出的簡易判決,認為原告Rosebud提出的證據並未指出'280的專利編號(建設性通知),不符專利法規定的實際告知的要求,認為不能以過去訴訟而認定被告已知相關系爭專利。


原告Rosebud上訴CAFC。

Adobe主張154(d)規定的實際告知應要求專利申請人有確實提出告知'280相關資訊,但CAFC針對美國專利法第154(d)條「Actual Notice」要求提出意見,認為154(d)並非要求一定要有確實的告知才算Actual Notice,Actual Notice包括訊息得知(Knowledge),並非一定要有確實的告知行為。


原告Rosebud主張在許多旁證可證明Adobe已知系爭專利'280,包括其母案的訴訟、系爭案與母案有相同的揭露內容、Adobe追蹤Rosebud產品並模仿,並認為被告實務上應有檢索發現到系爭專利。

但是否得到一樣內容的家族專利就算已知,CAFC的意見是,侵權被告無法知道核准專利的範圍,因此得知(knowledge)在法律上並不足以建立154(d)中的對於公開專利案的Actual Notice。


最後,Rosebud提供的證據不足,以及未及時提出證據,證據也不能證明Adobe的Actual Notice,CAFC維持地院判決,包括認為在discovery前作出簡易判決的合法性,Adobe並未滿足Actual Notice,原告不能主張暫時性權利。

my two cents:
本案似乎因為原告的失誤,或是證據缺陷而敗訴,CAFC也順勢作出決定,其中對於Provisional right仍有一些值得注意的討論。

如果要滿足154(d),就依照法條規定,有Actual Notice,不過要滿足這個Actual Notice,就頗費周章,即便確實的告知並非建立Actual Notice的必要條件,但還是保險起見,還是可以有Affirmative Act of Notice.

法條:
35 U.S.C. 154  CONTENTS AND TERM OF PATENT; PROVISIONAL RIGHTS

(d) PROVISIONAL RIGHTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.— In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty, or an international design application filed under the treaty defined in section 381(a)(1) designating the United States under Article 5 of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued
(A)
(i) makes, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States the invention as claimed in the published patent application or imports such an invention into the United States; or
(ii) if the invention as claimed in the published patent application is a process, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States or imports into the United States products made by that process as claimed in the published patent application; and
(B) had actual notice of the published patent application and, in a case in which the right arising under this paragraph is based upon an international application designating the United States that is published in a language other than English, had a translation of the international application into the English language.
(2) RIGHT BASED ON SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL INVENTIONS.— The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall not be available under this subsection unless the invention as claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the invention as claimed in the published patent application.
(3) TIME LIMITATION ON OBTAINING A REASONABLE ROYALTY.— The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall be available only in an action brought not later than 6 years after the patent is issued. The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall not be affected by the duration of the period described in paragraph (1).
(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS—
(A) EFFECTIVE DATE.— The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty based upon the publication under the treaty defined in section 351(a) of an international application designating the United States shall commence on the date of publication under the treaty of the international application, or, if the publication under the treaty of the international application is in a language other than English, on the date on which the Patent and Trademark Office receives a translation of the publication in the English language.
(B) COPIES.— The Director may require the applicant to provide a copy of the international application and a translation thereof.

CAFC判決:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1428.Opinion.2-5-2016.1.PDF
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/wank2cytxvw90kprwy9xmwpiaga0b2gf

資訊參考:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/02/issuance-damages-section.html

Ron

2016年2月15日 星期一

NewEgg告訴Patent Troll不要惹他 - 有關購物車專利訴訟

NewEgg(法務長:Lee Cheng)除了極力捍衛自己的權益外(如:"Site Update v. NewEgg (Fed. Cir. 2016)"),還協助其他公司對抗Patent Troll,NewEgg要Patent Troll去查查過去的戰功:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/

文章一開始就提出Soverain Software雖然網頁做得好像有那麼一回事,但卻實實在在是個Patent Troll,從沒有賣過一樣東西,甚至還做了一些調查。對這公司深惡痛絕的人還有它的被告,都是一些電子商物的零售商,因為Soverain Software擁有一些購物車專利,如US5,909,492、US7,272,639,以及US5,715,314。

如此,當NewEgg成功地撤銷了電子商務購物車的專利後,算是拯救了電子商務業者,一併解除相關專利訴訟。

NewEgg撤銷Soverain購物車專利(US5,715,314)的判決:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/11-1009.pdf

系爭請求項Claim 34(代表項) of US 5,715,314
34. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;
at least one shopping cart computer; and
a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;
said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;
said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;
said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.
35. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 34, wherein said shopping cart computer is programmed to cause said payment message to be created before said buyer computer causes said payment message to be activated.


這是一件有關網路銷售系統,系統有買家電腦、購物車電腦、購物車資料庫,系統讓買家可以透過網路與電腦選擇商品,並置入購物車(資料庫),購物車電腦接收到購物車資訊後,產生費用訊息,以執行交易。

在NewEgg上訴CAFC的專利無效請願中,經雙方辯論,Soverain並未提出有效證據(說明),也未針對先前技術CompuServe Mall提出回應。

314專利Claim 34被認為顯而易知,理由是先前技術CompuServe Mall揭示如claim 35的購物車付費技術,進而認為claims 34, 35顯而易知(引用KSR判例)。

CompuServe Mall於1980年代發表電子商務,有影片:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-oBJml1mL0,這成為現代電子商物的雛型。以下是CompuServe網站的介紹:
"An Internet Pioneer
Founded in 1969 as a computer time-sharing service, Columbus, Ohio-based CompuServe drove the initial emergence of the online service industry. In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. CompuServe broke new ground again in 1980 as the first online service to offer real-time chat online with its CB Simulator. By 1982, the company had formed its Network Services Division to provide wide-area networking capabilities to corporate clients.
CompuServe also led the interactive services industry overseas, entering the international arena in Japan in 1986 with Fujitsu and Nisso Iwai, developing a Japanese-language version of CompuServe called NIFTYSERVE. In 1989, the company expanded into Europe where it grew to be a leading Internet service provider."

還找到1988年新聞,標題是"On-line Shopping Is Open Anytime":
http://articles.philly.com/1988-12-15/entertainment/26226456_1_electronic-mall-gift-shop-compuserve


my two cents:
電子商務類型專利很難准!

消滅真正Patent Troll最好的方式就是:訴訟持續到最後。如Lee Cheng受訪的講法:"We saw that if we paid off this patent holder, we'd have to pay off every patent holder this same amount. This is the first case we took all the way to trial. And now, nobody has to pay Soverain jack squat for these patents."

不過,在此案中,Soverain是個不容小覷的Patent Troll,它能持續提告,持續用訴訟策略要被告低頭,而它只要求"一點點"和解費用...。(http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/shopping-cart-patent-troll-shamelessly-keeps-litigating-and-losing/

NewEgg曾經遇到阻礙,為了捍衛「被告的權益」,要求原告繳付律師費,但是即便是"勝訴",也不代表可以要敗訴方賠償律師費 - Site Update v. NewEgg (Fed. Cir. 2016):http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/02/site-update-v-newegg-fed-cir-2016.html

一個購物車專利補充資訊:
Amazon One-Click Patent:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/08/one-click-patent.html

新聞來源:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/patent-troll-realizes-it-sued-newegg-drops-lawsuit-the-next-day/

Ron

2016年2月6日 星期六

勝訴,不代表可以要敗訴方賠償律師費 - Site Update v. NewEgg (Fed Cir. 2016)

本案涉及美國專利法第285條有關法院對於訴訟相關費用的裁量權的「例外情事、特殊情況」,可參考過去報導:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/12/patent-troll.html(東德州法官用律師費打擊Patent Troll)

相關案例,也是本次地院裁決的參考案例:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html(地方法院有決定律師費誰付的裁量權 - Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014))

Site Update v. CBS Corp and NewEgg (Fed Cir. 2016)案件資訊:
侵權原告/專利權人/被上訴人:SITE UPDATE SOLUTIONS, LLC
原侵權被告/上訴人:NEWEGG INC.,
系爭專利:US RE40,683

原被告有多人,但是NewEgg繼續為著費用主張自己的權益,雖結果不盡理想,卻也創造了一個案例。


系爭專利關於使用XML技術製作的網頁具有可以更新搜尋引擎的方法。


案例討論:

緣起:
2010年專利權人Site Update在東德州地方法院對39間公司提告,但只有NewEgg不和解,其他38個被告都和解了!

過程:
經專利範圍解釋與聽證之後,因為專利範圍解釋起來不如原告原來的立場(可能預測侵權判決不如預期),原告撤銷告訴,結果,NewEgg不買單,還將議題轉到「律師費」

雖然原判決被告勝訴,但被告NewEgg拒絕這個原本有利於被告的和解,因為費用的議題,請求法院裁量合理律師費用的例外情事,要求原告負擔律師費用

結果,加州地院否決這個補充請願,還作出8個理由:
原告不合理的專利範圍解釋,但這不會是擔負費用的充分理由;原告對於功能手段用語的誤解並不會讓此案例"特殊(例外)";原告錯誤,但不是不講理;原告的濫用並非不合理到要繳付費用;錯誤解釋專利範圍不是"例外"條件;原告侵權的理由有缺陷也非擔負費用的充分理由;原告和解意圖也不是讓本案成為"例外";本案不適用考量原告"威嚇"的動機

"(1) Site Update’s unreasonable claim constructions were not “so weak that this case stands out from others because [Site Update] abandoned its reliance on these constructions when it was given the opportunity to do so”;
(2) Site Update’s misunderstanding of means-plus-function law did not make the case exceptional;
(3) Site Update’s positions on necessary structures were “unartful,” but not so frivolous to be exceptional;
(4) Site Update’s position on structures “strains credibility,” but was not so unreasonable as to warrant fees;
(5) an incorrect proposed claim construction is not exceptional;
(6) Site Update’s infringement theories had flaws, but losing does not compel fees;
(7) Site Update’s willingness to settle does not make the case exceptional; and
(8) deterrent policy considerations are inapposite in this case."

當地院駁回這個費用請求,NewEgg上訴CAFC,(第一次)CAFC發回地院重審,要求地院考量最高法院的判例「Octane Fitness v. Icon Health」。


這回地院仍是維持原判,駁回NewEgg的請求。

結論:
NewEgg再上訴,(第二次)CAFC依照最高法院「Octane Fitness v. Icon Health」判例,認為地方法院有權認定律師費用由那一方付費,其中認為即便原告Site Update敗訴,但也不是構成美國專利法第285條的「例外情事或特殊情況」。因此判決維持地院判決。


my two cents:
此原告在東德州地方法院提告,先前此地院作出對Patent Troll懲罰性裁決,這位原告應該很ㄘㄨㄚˋ才是。(不過此案是已經轉到加州地院就是了,這只是我的聯想)

雖從原告撤銷告訴的結果來看,可能當初堅持下來的被告都可以獲得"勝訴的名聲",但是大筆律師費總是個問題,這個案例告訴我們,沒有勝訴就可以"無理"要求律師費,這算是穩定一個司法系統,如果敗訴都要負擔對方律師費,這個可能也影響很大。

上述地方法院提出的幾點不適用美國專利法第289條「例外」考量的項目十分有參考價值。

被告除了明顯競爭的情況以外,"多半"是"無故"因為被告而需要聘請律師打官司,而可能要繳付大筆律師費用,但是在法律給人興訟的權力(只要你有權利),雖被告可以是很無辜的一方,但是法院應會判斷是否原告(有權利者)有隨意濫訴的問題而給予「特殊待遇」。

過去這裡有報導東德州法官Rodney Gilstrap認為原告NPE有"客觀不合理"的訴訟理由而給予懲罰性費用裁決(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/12/patent-troll.html),但也有如過去報導「Octane Fitness v. Icon Health」(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html)與本次討論案例認為「原告(專利權人)雖敗訴,但是其中卻沒有浮誇與無理由」的情況,看來,這些都是有一定的邏輯的。

CAFC判決(第一次,2014年判決,就是一紙命令發回地院要求依照最高法院判例重審):

CAFC判決(第二次,2016年):

Ron

2016年2月5日 星期五

蘋果這回栽在NPE手上,被判損害賠償6億美元 - VirnetX v. Apple

VirnetX是個非實施專利實體(NPE),宣稱擁有80件專利,經查目前以VirnetX為專利權人的美國專利有48件,靠專利授權獲利,員工只有14位。

http://virnetx.com/



VirnetX告上Apple Inc.,認為Apple侵害其4件專利權,相關被告疑似侵權程式如iMessage, Facetime等。報導指出,VirnetX曾於2012年獲得法院判決Apple應賠其3億多美元的勝訴,不過經Apple上訴,法院判VirnetX敗訴,理由是無法證明消費者之所以買Apple iPad等裝置是因為其中侵害專利權的軟體程式。

案件發回地院重審賠償金額,不料,新的陪審團認為Apple有蓄意侵犯專利權,因此又多罰了2億多美元。

訴訟討論:

受理法院:東德州地方法院
原告:VirnetX Inc.
被告:Apple Inc.
系爭專利:
US6,502,135、US7,490,151、US7,418,504、US7,921,211

系爭專利與權力主張的概要:
Apple's VPN on Demand 侵害US6,502,135與US7,490,151(判賠3億3千萬美元);
The FaceTime 蓄意侵害,這判賠2億9千萬美元。


第二次地院陪審團又多判了Apple應繳付2億多的賠償金給VirnetX。


系爭專利US6,502,135是建立VPN通道的技術,包括從客戶端電腦產生DNS請求,要取得IP,接著判斷是否此請求是要存取安全網站,之後根據得到的DNS,自動起始VPN通道。
1. A method of transparently creating a virtual private network (VPN) between a client computer and a target computer, comprising the steps of:
(1) generating from the client computer a Domain Name Service (DNS) request that requests an IP address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target computer;
(2) determining whether the DNS request transmitted in step (1) is requesting access to a secure web site; and
(3) in response to determining that the DNS request in step (2) is requesting access to a secure target web site, automatically initiating the VPN between the client computer and the target computer.
系爭專利US7,490,151界定一個數據處理裝置,有記憶體儲存DNS代理模組,可以取得網路上請求(對應伺服器)DNS的訊息,比對是否符合安全伺服器,藉此可以起始經加密的通道(VPN)。
1. A data processing device, comprising memory storing a domain name server (DNS) proxy module that intercepts DNS requests sent by a client and, for each intercepted DNS request, performs the steps of:
(i) determining whether the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server;
(ii) when the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure server, forwarding the DNS request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure computer, and
(iii) when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server, automatically initiating an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server.
系爭專利US7,418,504揭露提供網域名稱以建立安全連線的技術,系統如請求項1,包括有網域名稱伺服器,其中儲存網域名稱與對應的位址,同樣也支援建立客戶-系統端的安全通道(VPN)。
1. A system for providing a domain name service for establishing a secure communication link, the system comprising:
a domain name service system configured to be connected to a communication network, to store a plurality of domain names and corresponding network addresses, to receive a query for a network address, and to comprise an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.
系爭專利US7,921,211揭露提供網域名稱以建立安全通道,系統即包括有網域名稱伺服器,可以根據DNS請求而進一步建立安全通道。
1. A system for providing a domain name service for establishing a secure communication link, the system comprising:
a domain name service system configured and arranged to be connected to a communication network, store a plurality of domain names and corresponding network addresses, receive a query for a network address, and indicate in response to the query whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.
從這幾件專利特徵看來,直指iPhone或iPad中iMessage, Facetime訊號載送在安全通道的技術,先得到DNS後,建立VPN看來是個標準動作,不容易迴避。

補充:
雖說VirnetX是個NPE,也有說是Patent Troll,倒是他們還為了這個自動DNS建立安全連線的機制註冊服務商標,提到相關軟體的功能如下,這樣不是...就超命中:
"Our software and technology solutions provide the security platform required by next-generation Internet-based applications such as instant messaging, or IM, voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, mobile services, streaming video, file transfer and remote desktop."


判決文:


VirnetX自己的新聞稿:
http://virnetx.com/virnetx-awarded-625-6-million-verdict-against-apple/

新聞來源:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/technology/apple-patent-lawsuit-virnetx/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/03/apple-ordered-to-pay-625m-in-revived-virnetx-patent-trial

Ron