2018年2月14日 星期三

不公平行為造成壟斷的管轄權爭議 - Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp (Fed. Cir. 2018)

本篇案例是個司法議題,在此僅筆記,並沒有多餘的見解。
Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp (Fed. Cir. 2018)

案件資訊:
原告/上訴人:XITRONIX CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人/專利權人:KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, DBA KLA-TENCOR, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
系爭專利:US8,817,260(專利權人:Kla-Tencor Corporation

本案緣起原告Xitronix主張Kla-Tencor Corporation取得系爭專利是基於對PTO蓄意欺瞞的行為("It alleges KLA intentionally made false representations to the PTO on which the examiner relied during prosecution.")("inequitable conduct"),地方法院在簡易判決時,認為即便審查歷史錯誤陳述先前技術的狀態,但是審查答辯所提出的言論仍是被公平地檢驗,不會視為錯誤陳述事實

本案接著上訴CAFC,即便涉及「欺瞞PTO」的專利基本議題,CAFC判決在本案中「Walker Process壟斷」的議題並不符美國專利法中規定上訴法院的管轄權,本次判決為根據「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」最高法院判決而翻轉了CAFC於2008年案例「In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride (Cipro) Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)」有關法院立場的判決。

「是否地區法院(包括地方法院、聯邦法院)法律適用Walker Process壟斷議題?」

Walker Process壟斷」為典型由被告在專利侵權訴訟中提出的主張,而多數這類議題都會上訴CAFC,且專利侵權議題是CAFC的管轄範圍;但是,此案例中Walker Process壟斷」的討論對是源自PTO欺瞞的不正當行為,所關聯的管轄權是依據28 U.S. Code § 1338(a),使得管轄權在此案被轉向地區法院。

即便訴訟雙方都認為CAFC對此案有管轄權,都提出意見,但這些意見都沒有影響「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」的最高法院意旨:美國各州法律稱專利案件中的弊端並非根據聯邦專利法的管轄權。

"in Gunn, the Supreme Court held that a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case does not “arise under” federal patent law for purposes of exclusive federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)."

主要原因就是,這些爭議並非專利法的實質議題,與專利是否有效、侵權,而僅涉及原專利權人是否有錯誤陳述的議題,專利不會因此成為有效或無效,其中涉及的「Walker Process 壟斷」議題可以由地區法院判決,也不會破壞整個體制。

"Because Federal Circuit law applies to substantive questions involving our exclusive jurisdiction, the fact that at least some Walker Process claims may be appealed to the regional circuits will not undermine our uniform body of patent law."

於是,CAFC仍決定將上訴議題轉換到第五聯邦巡迴法院(United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)(28 U.S. Code § 1295)。根據Patently-O專家表示,這顯示州法院與聯邦法院之間的平衡性。




所述「Walker Process壟斷」議題源自美國1965年最高法院對於「Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 176–77 (1965)」的意見:因為欺瞞PTO獲取專利的權利主張違反「Sherman Act聯邦反壟斷法」

"the Supreme Court held that enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the PTO may be a federal antitrust violation under the Sherman Act."

- 「Walker Process monopolization」:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Process_Equipment,_Inc._v._Food_Machinery_%26_Chemical_Corp.

判決書:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2746.Order.2-7-2018.1.PDF(備份:https://app.box.com/s/51r7bc3ypmxtuld8x4ije46dvm7wyf4k

[相關法條]
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)規範聯邦法院上訴法院管轄權,其中第(a)(1)款規範美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)的專屬管轄權:CAFC為美國地方法院終判的民事上訴法院,包括為關島地區法院(Guam)、維京群島地區法院(Virgin Islands)與北馬里亞納群島地區法院(Northern Mariana)等的民事最終判決的上訴法院。


28 U.S. Code § 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(a)The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—
(1)
of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, in any civil action arising under, or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection;
...

28 U.S. Code § 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

(a)
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
...


my two cents:
我覺得,此案可能是特例,因為過去仍有許多涉及「不公平行為」產生不合理壟斷的議題在CAFC法院解決,或許有更深層面的司法考慮(反壟斷法、Sherman Act!)。日後應會對最高法院判例「Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)」、CAFC「In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)」案作出一些研究。

我不是學法律的,但長期來看美國法院的判決、議題討論,都覺得這個充滿「智慧」的層層規範,或說制約,其中邏輯與判斷(即便有些也覺得不合理)都是另我讚嘆。

- 「Walker Process monopolization」:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Process_Equipment,_Inc._v._Food_Machinery_%26_Chemical_Corp.

- Wikipedia有關「美國法院」的記載:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/美国联邦上诉法院
"美國的50個州、首都華盛頓特區同其境外領土被劃分為13個審判區域,設有13個巡迴上訴法院。其中11個巡迴法院由數字命名,其餘兩個法院分別是哥倫比亞特區巡迴上訴法院和美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院。"

過去有關1295條報導參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/01/phigenix-v-immunogen-fed-cir-2017.html(上訴的立場)

有關「反壟斷法」的相關報導:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/05/transweb-v-3m-fed-cir-2016.html

參考資料:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/federal-circuit-walker-process-claims-do-not-arise-under-us-patent-law.html

Ron

沒有留言: