2017年7月31日 星期一

一件蘋果侵權案的討論 - WARF v. Apple

本來本篇名稱是「法官補一刀讓蘋果多付了二億七千多萬美元」,本案緣起Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation於2014年對Apple Inc.提出的侵權告訴,結果地院陪審團在2015年判Apple賠償原告2億3千萬美元,法官補一刀加碼最後達5億多美元,理由是Apple持續侵權的行為。

面對如系爭專利這類「古老、快過期(2016年過期)」的專利,諸位大廠確實是防不慎防(Intel在2008年和解),如果不是濫告的話,侵權成立的機會很大。系爭專利涉及一種通過預測("predictor circuit")使用者指令而可以提昇系統處理器效能的技術,面對侵權的產品如Apple的A9, A9X等。

其中有個議題是「學校或機構等沒有產品的專利權人是不是"patent troll"或"NPE"?」

案件資訊:
原告/專利侵權:WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION
被告:APPLE, INC.
系爭專利:US 5781752

這回,原告主動向法院提起阻止被告提起「‘patent troll,’ ‘patent assertion entity,’ ‘non-practicing entity’ or other similarly pejorative terms.」的請求,蘋果並未反對,卻認為這樣的請求是有別的意圖,與賠償有關。蘋果並"回復"「NPE」的名譽(編按,其實也是暗打原告的意圖),認為"NPE"僅是描述"沒有實際生產的實體",並不同於"Patent Troll"有貶抑的意謂。

因此,如法官認同蘋果意見一般:「NPE不是Patent Troll,NPE沒有貶抑的意思」,而學校一般認為是NPE

原告Wisconsin Alumni Research FoundationApple Inc.提出侵權告訴,蘋果反訴認為專利無效(102,先前技術:US5619662),以及請求項中不明確的問題(112)。

系爭專利申請日在1996,於1998獲准專利權,專利期限到2016年止。系爭專利關於平行處理電腦中的基於表格的一種數據推測電路(Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer),就是提出的預測電路可以根據過去的指令來預測將來的指令,藉此有效應用記憶體,而提昇電腦效能。



Claim 1:
1. In a processor capable of executing program instructions in an execution order differing from their program order, the processor further having a data speculation circuit for detecting data dependence between instructions and detecting a mis-speculation where a data consuming instruction dependent for its data on a data producing instruction of earlier program order, is in fact executed before the data producing instruction, a data speculation decision circuit comprising:
a) a predictor receiving a mis-speculation indication from the data speculation circuit to produce a prediction associated with the particular data consuming instruction and based on the mis-speculation indication; and
b) a prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range.

所述表格包括一個預測表格,以及一個同步表格,兩種"Tables"分別記載於Claims 3, 5,蘋果公司用現在的語言來處理這兩個表格,認為這兩個表格顯然是分開的表格,彼此之間卻又沒有結構上的差異,而僅是一些功能表示而已。但是蘋果的解釋並未被系爭專利說明書內容支持,反倒有個較廣解釋專利範圍的可能,也就是以表格中界定的功能來表示這個用語的範圍,而非用結構特徵來綁定(分開的表格)。

3. The data speculation decision circuit of claim 2 wherein the instruction synchronization circuit includes a prediction table listing certain data consuming instructions and certain data producing instructions each associated with a prediction and wherein the instruction synchronization circuit delays the particular data consuming instruction only:
i) when the prediction associated with the data consuming instruction is within a predetermined range; and
ii) when the particular data consuming instruction is in the prediction table.
5. The data speculation decision circuit of claim 2 wherein the instruction synchronization circuit includes a synchronization table associating the certain data consuming instructions and the certain data producing instructions each with a flag value indicating whether the respective certain data producing instruction has been executed and wherein the instruction synchronization circuit delays the particular data consuming instruction only:
i) when the prediction associated with the data consuming instruction is within a predetermined range; and
ii) when the particular data consuming instruction is in the prediction table; and
iii) when the flag indicates the particular data producing instruction has not been executed.

本案經解釋專利範圍後,否決蘋果的意見,特別在蘋果開發的晶片是否採用了「推測」指令的技術,陪審團判決是侵權成立的,或反過來說,蘋果並未能夠證明自己沒有使用。這裡涉及的技術討論僅是摘錄:


關於蘋果是否「蓄意侵權(willful infringement)」而產生進一步損害賠償,引用Seagate案CAFC的解釋:專利權人需要善意提出蓄意侵權的問題,之後再主張蓄意侵權,反之,當被告侵權者之後的行為被認為魯莽,專利權人可以主張初步禁制令。所以,如果專利權人沒有企圖阻止被告侵權者的行為,就不應僅根據被告之後的行為而要求進一步損害賠償(enhanced damage),也就是"蓄意"的成份。

"It is certainly true that patent infringement is an ongoing offense that can continue after litigation has commenced. However, when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8, 11(b). So a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer’s pre-filing conduct. By contrast, when an accused infringer’s post-filing conduct is reckless, a patentee can move for a preliminary injunction, which generally provides an adequate remedy for combating post-filing willful infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 283; Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused
infringer’s activities in this manner should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s postfiling conduct. Similarly, if a patentee attempts to secure injunctive relief but fails, it is likely the infringement did not rise to the level of recklessness."

參考報導:
蓄意侵權的判決 - 有關豁免主張 - In re Seagate Technology, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2007)案例討論(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/in-re-seagate-technology-llc-fed-cir.html
美國最高法院案例的損害賠償討論 - Halo v. Pulse (June 13, 2016, Supreme Court)http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/halo-v-pulse-june-13-2016-supreme-court.html

在判決中,甚至討論到是否同意「永久禁制令」,結果,原告因為不事生產,所以沒有任何「不可回復的損害」,因此法院並未同意永久禁制令。


但同意部分授權金、侵權費用等原告意見,有些摘錄如下:



一些法律與證據費用明細:



2015年陪審團審判前地院意見(備份):https://app.box.com/s/7yxd83xwpdc3k55vh0dc9m8apdsw33m6

2017年判決(備份):https://app.box.com/s/8d499859pzssf12o9kwyy6tt1sy44me7

my two cents:
本篇地院判決中可以查考出一些訴訟策略,因為原告面對擁有龐大專利權的蘋果,因此在策略上有一定的深思熟慮,包括考量蘋果本身在相關技術上的專利,以及系爭專利曾經讓其他大公司的和解(被"黑"掉)、授權、外部證據、專家證詞,不過,這真是不容易分析,也沒有深入討論。

相對較少討論地方法院案例,總覺得上訴法院的意見的參考價值比較大,不過,更多爭訟都是止於地方法院,地方法院考量的議題更為複雜,涉及的層面比"較偏重法律審查"的上訴法院更多元,讀起來其實還比較吃力。但如果自己有判斷力,每個法院、法官的意見都是有意義的。

資料參考:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-vpn-idUSKBN1AE0BQ
https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/25/apple-patent-chip-efficiency-case/

Ron

沒有留言: