2018年6月6日 星期三

原告有責任在適當地點提出訴訟 - In re ZTE (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2018)

案件資訊:
上訴人/原被告:In re: ZTE (USA) INC.
原告:American GNC Corporation

此案中,ZTE對原本東德州地方法院因為"被告ZTE"不符28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)中證明不當訴訟所在地的規定而撤銷訴訟的決定提出上訴。

本案緣起American GNC對ZTE提起侵權告訴,過程中,ZTE提起法院轉換的請願(移轉管轄),請求由東德州地院Marshall Division(原告在此提告是因為對專利權人有利)轉換到北德州地方法院或北卡地方法院(被告希望迴避對專利權人有利的東德州地院)。

根據28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), 1406(a)規定,可以在對各方方便與公平的理由,可轉換到已經提出訴訟的地院,或是當各方同意時,可以轉換管轄法院;如果提訴的地方法院所在地有誤,地院應該撤銷訴訟;或是因為公平,可要求轉換地方法院或是其分院。

地院法官否決ZTE提出的請願,認為目前東德州地方法院符合28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)方便分析的條件,並未對28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)提出決定,結果在2017年移到東德州地院Sherman Division,並分配新的法官,這不是ZTE原本請求的,因為ZTE並未證明它在東德州沒有營業處,ZTE在那裡有個客服中心(call center)

後地院否決ZTE對此決定提出的異議,理由是ZTE沒有證明東德州法院為不當管轄法院,於是,ZTE上訴CAFC。

上訴議題主要有二:(1)關於「適當訴訟所在地(proper venue)」的舉證責任(burden of proof)的適用法條?(2)誰有責任證明「適當訴訟所在地」?

首先,法院先澄清當訴訟其中一方提出上級法院對下級法院的令狀請願(writ of mandamus)時,即便有一些要件(沒有足夠的選擇來獲得救濟、"發布令狀"是明確和無可爭辯的),但是法院仍在特定情況下有自己的裁量權。



這裡引用美國最高法院在TC Heartland案例中的意見:所述「專利管轄所在地(管轄法院)」可隨著被告的居住地或企業據點而轉移:「最高法院同意被告移審請求,將侵權訴訟審理移到其企業根據地的法院審理。如此,將來專利訴訟審理法院將可隨被告請求移到"居住地"/“企業據點",而不再讓原告指定/挑選對其有利的法院。」。

可參考:以企業據點決定管轄法院 - 美國最高法院TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC決定(http://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-food-group.html

對於第一個議題,直接講答案:判斷訴訟所在地就是根據28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)。

"...we hold that Federal Circuit law governs the placement of the burden of persuasion on the propriety of venue under § 1400(b)."

根據28 U.S.C. § 1400(b),專利侵權訴訟的地方法院應在被告所在地,或是被告商業行為侵權的發生地。

"Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

主要是第二個議題:誰有責任證明適當的訴訟所在地(管轄法院)?

遊戲規則是:原告可以依據自己的選擇(或說責任)在適當的法院提出告訴,而被告可以根據「聯邦民事訴訟細則12(b)(3)(Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3))」提出「因不當審查管轄撤銷訴訟」的請願(motion to dismiss for improper venue)。

即便有§ 1400(b)這麼明確的法規,這裡有個提醒:不要把一般法院管轄與專利適當管轄法院混淆了。

"In applying § 1400(b), it is important “not to conflate showings that may be sufficient for other purposes, e.g., personal jurisdiction or the general venue statute, with the necessary showing to establish proper venue in patent cases.”"

雖規定管轄法院是在被告的所在地...等,但法院認為過去法院案例並未考慮誰擔負§ 1400(b)的舉證責任,這裡綜合各種因素作出一個較好的決定(編按,Cray案提出三個判斷管轄地區的需求:一個確實的地點、商業據點與被告所在地):專利侵權案件中的適當管轄地點的舉證責任應該轉移到原告。



在證據方面,當判斷ZTE的商業據點(place of business)時,經過調查,即便ZTE配合其他夥伴在當地(東德州Marshall Division相關)有客服中心,但與ZTE等合約與關係不夠明確,而地院在判斷上有瑕疵。



最後,CAFC法官認為,地方法院不當地將管轄法院的舉證責任施加在被告ZTE,也就是不當要求ZTE證明東德州法院是不當管轄,而反過來要求原告有舉證責任證明東德州法院為適當的管轄法院。

結論:
CAFC法官判決認為地院錯誤將訴訟所在地的舉證責任(improper venue的舉證責任)推給被告ZTE,以及地院並未完全考量爭議中的所有因素,因此同意被告ZTE提出上級對下級撤銷判決的令狀(writ of mandamus)。

"Because the district court incorrectly assigned the burden of proof on venue and failed to fully consider the factors relevant to the question of whether the call center in question was

that of ZTE USA, we grant the petition to the extent of vacating the order denying the motion to dismiss and remanding the motion for reconsideration consistent with this order."

my two cents:
本案算重要案例是因為很久沒有這類的訴訟與法院意見。

當CAFC判決被告沒有證明不當管轄法院的責任時,地院不應將此舉證責任強加在被告身上,也不應成為拒絕請願的理由。不過,這只是順序的問題而已吧!被告總是被動地「被告」,原告找對自己有利的法院提告是"很正常"的動作,而被告也"正常地"提出反對意見,只是不用舉證,但是...要移審,總是還是要提出理由說服法官這是不當管轄法院。

回到TC Heartland LLC案,能夠反對訴訟所在地,大約還是要根據居住地、企業據點等事實吧!

補充:
(知識)patently-o文章提到,美國每區都有自己的上訴法院,產出指導下級法院的判決。對於專利訴訟,在提出訴訟的地方也是在這些區域法院,但是,專利訴訟的上訴法院則是統一為聯邦巡迴上訴法院(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit),適用相同的聯邦法律,但實務上對個別案例仍有不同的見解。

13個聯邦巡迴法院的管轄區域,圖表來源:

各分院管轄人口,2010年數據:

參考法條:
[28 U.S.C. § 1400, 1404、1406]
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text)

28 U.S. Code § 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

(a)
Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.

(b)
Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.


28 U.S. Code § 1404 - Change of venue

(a)
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
(b)
Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section without the consent of the United States where all other parties request transfer.
(c)
A district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.
(d)
Transfers from a district court of the United States to the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall not be permitted under this section. As otherwise used in this section, the term “district court” includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the term “district” includes the territorial jurisdiction of each such court.


28 U.S. Code § 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects

(a)
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
(b)
Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue.
(c)
As used in this section, the term “district court” includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the term “district” includes the territorial jurisdiction of each such court.

判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-113.Motion_Panel_Order.5-10-2018.1.PDF(備份:https://app.box.com/s/tl1f62swmckwnus2lcgaxvbjxprxzjq4

參考資料:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/plaintiff-burden-establishing.html

Ron

沒有留言: