2017年3月8日 星期三

美國法院要NPE律師自己負擔法律費用 - Gust vs Alphacap Ventures and Richard Juarez

一般認定為NPE或Patent Troll的實體為具有專利權但不從事相關生產,卻以訴訟為獲利來源的實體,運作方式則是雇請律師以獲勝抽成的方式打訴訟官司。這雖是合法,但手段常常讓沒有侵權的人卻要付出相當的授權費用,形同勒索,或說是一種保護費(避免惡意干擾),這讓人深惡痛絕,甚至阻礙產業發展。

即便制定一些規則想要杜絕這種以訴訟為獲利手段的情形,但似乎並沒有太大效果,現在美國法院又想到一個可以嚇阻這類訴訟的手段,就是要求興訟方律師自己要支付訴訟費用,而不是由專利權人支付,再由勝訴中賠償金抽成的方式支付律師費用。

本篇討論案例頗為有趣,當訴訟方(原告:Alphacap,稱NPE)挾專利權對被告(Gust)提出告訴,被告提出反訴,主張專利無效,並要求原告繳付所有費用,包括法律費用(法院、律師)以及損害賠償。但原告律師則回應原告沒有錢,要求撤回訴訟。本案終止,法官要求原告,或是其訴訟律師應繳付50萬美元給勝訴的被告。

這讓我想到當事人因為破產而無法繼續訴訟導致訴訟終止的案例:申請破產以阻止法律訴訟進行 - 360 Electrical LLC v. Gottrox LLC (E.D. Tex. 2011)http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/12/360-electrical-llc-v-gottrox-llc-ed-tex.html

案件資訊:
被告/反訴人:Gust, Inc.
原告/專利權人/反訴被告:Alphacap Ventures, LLC
系爭專利:US7,848,976, US7,908,208, US8,433,630

緣起專利權人Alphacap對被告Gust提出專利告訴,

三件系爭專利為溯及同一臨時申請案(provisional application)的家族專利,以US7,848,976為例,其揭露在私募股權(private equity)和債務融資(debt funding)的操作上,資源提供者定義出一種電子資料收集版模,提供潛在消費者填寫以形成半同質資料檔,所述資源提供者與消費者可以委派自己或第三方存取這些檔案。資源提供者可以辨識出這些檔案加入其投資組合(portfolio),以能進一步管理,包括追蹤所有存取活動與記錄檔案,以便進行審計(audit purposes)。


1. A method of managing resource consumer information, comprising the steps of:
a system of one or more machines providing to a resource provider, a first set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions within a user interface, where processing input received in the first set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions, causes the system to define requirements of, and to name, at least one profile group;
the system providing to the resource provider, a second set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions within a user interface, where processing input received in the second set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions causes the system to define a data collection template of fields for a semi-homogenous profile of desired resource consumer information according to requirements of a selected profile group, data collection templates of fields of different semi-homogeneous profiles need not be uniform for all semi-homogeneous profiles;
the system providing to at least one user, by a computer, a telephone or a Personal Digital Assistant, one or more user fields within a user interface in which the user may input information into the user fields;
storing the information as a semi-homogenous profile record in an electronic database system;
the system providing the resource provider, by a computer, a third set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions within a user interface where processing input received in the third set of one or more resource-provider-input-regions causes the system to associate the profile record with the selected profile group; and
the system providing to at least one authorized party, one or more authorized-party-input-regions within a user interface, where processing input received in the one or more authorized-party-input-regions causes the system to access information stored in the system and associated with a selected profile group.
專利範圍十分典型地界定一個資料管理技術,由一個系統執行管理,就如專利權人Alphacap在訴訟中的認知,Alphacap自己覺得這樣的專利範圍(資訊管理、商業方法)可能無法通過最高法院在Alice v. CLS Bank判例所教示的可專利性檢測,當被告Gust訴求專利無效時,就立約不起訴,然而,預備訴訟的費用都花了,被告Gust即聲請原告Alphacap繳付相關律師相關費用。這裡被告Gust引用美國專利法35 U.S.C. § 285的例外條款,以及在28 U.S.C. 1927在不合理訴訟中要求代理人負責費用的規定。

案例可參考:

Alphacap視為NPE/Patent Troll,原因是不從事生產,卻到處興訟,即便最高法院作出Alice v. CLS Bank判例而認知到自己所擁有的專利權因為涉及「一般電腦作業」無法轉換不可專利的抽象概念為可專利的發明而可能無法通過可專利性檢驗,仍透過訴訟來強迫被告「和解」,從中獲取利益(值得注意的是,NPE也不好當,就訴訟費用而言,每件不超過5萬美元的和解金其實是很少的)。

"the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.  Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ is not enough for patent eligibility."

Gust提出6件反訴,提出包括不侵權與專利無效的請願的確認之訴(declaratory judgment)。如此雙方代理律師即尋求和解,Alphacap同意解除訴訟,雙方河水不犯井水("walkaway"),不過Gust律師不同意,不同意對方一走了之,要求將費用轉嫁給Alphacap方。

Alphacap提出探索請願(motion for discovery),在探索期間,可能是不耐冗長的訴訟,Gust律師也提出和解方案:一旦對方解除訴訟,Gust在滿足以下條件之一也撤回反訴:(1)繳付所有律師費用;(2)取得所有Alphacap的專利。

"Gust would consent to AlphaCap’s dismissal of the case with prejudice and Gust would voluntarily dismiss its counterclaims if AlphaCap either: 
(1) agreed to pay Gust’s attorneys’ fees; or 
(2) assigned full ownership in all of the AlphaCap Patents to Gust so that Gust could prevent the AlphaCap Patents from being used again for frivolous litigation."

當雙方沒有共識,只好回到法院,付諸司法程序。其實過程中都沒有放棄和解,甚至轉換過法院,並提到和解費用,只是沒有得到共識。

法院在決定擔負費用的責任時,考量了最高法院案例Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)的教示,並作出解釋:


特別的是,專利權人Alphacap已經理解到專利性在Alice判例檢測下並不具可專利性仍提出訴訟,判斷Alphacap訴訟不合理,並認定Alphacap提出訴訟是獲取和解的目的(但不見得符合專利法285條中輕浮與客觀上不合理的例外情況)。



認定Alphacap提訴為輕浮與客觀上不合理是基於(以下僅節錄判決書部分內容,法院花了很大篇幅討論專利性):

(a)專利權僅為抽象概念(發明涉及基本經濟活動與商業方法)的不可專利發明:


(b)請求項範圍不包括進步性概念而足夠能轉換抽象概念為可專利發明:


如此認定專利權人Alphacap的訴訟動機不恰當:


法院同意被告Gust要求返還律師費用可以阻卻濫訴的情況:


但認為即便專利權無效,並不構成專利法285條規定的例外情況:


原告律師的責任在於他沒有「good faith」:
"AlphaCap’s Attorneys Did Not Have a Good Faith Basis to  Oppose Gust’s Motion to Transfer Venue. "

接著就是核算律師費用(對律師費用怎麼算可以看一下判決書),最終法院要求NPE當事人或其律師繳付所有訴訟費用50萬美元。


[相關法條]

35 U.S.C. 285    ATTORNEY FEES.

The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.

28 U.S.C. 1927    counsel's liability for excessive costs

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

訴訟判決:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv06192/445859/89/
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/b9ok7ngumfvyrye3xdum2ih54b8ylqhe

my two cents:
這個訴訟往來看到「律師」的工作真是「血進血出」,刀刀入骨,一旦占了上風(專利權無力),就能乘勝追擊。

本篇報導特別的是,涉及了即便取得專利權,但是因為專利性不高(這不見得構成濫訴的條件),而專利權人的「立場明確為透過訴訟要求獲得和解金」,只是侵權被告並不妥協,法院顯然同情被NPE告的對象,司馬昭之心,使得整個情況扭轉。其中關鍵是:不妥協的立場與專利的強度不夠。

資料來源:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-get-rid-patent-trolls-us-federal-judge-now-making-their-lawyers-pay-bill-1600055

https://casetext.com/case/gust-inc-v-alphacap-ventures-llc

Ron

沒有留言: