這件案子有不少可討論的議題（issues）：
- 有趣的是CAFC認為地方法院誤解專利系統的立意，而浪費了大量的資源！原來我們常使用的手搖式奶泡器是有專利的
- 從告訴人前後取得兩件專利的方式可以看出CA（continuation of application）案的用處，包括提出不同於母案的權利範圍，甚至擴大範圍）
- 系爭專利明顯有前案，為顯而易知！
原由：
其中CAFC提醒地方法院，提到2007年KSR的最高法院判例（可參閱：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/ksr-v-teleflex.html、http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/ksr-uspto.html），認為法院給了專利局審查委員極大的權限去判斷一個專利案的顯而易知性，並且地方法院的簡易判決（summary judgment）也應該證明系爭專利為顯而易知的技術，因此作出不同於地方法院的審決，此案應該「侵權不成立」，這應該早早就決定的事，相關訴訟方竟然花了大錢與多年的纏訟，甚至要CAFC作出後續判決，這不符公眾利益，也非專利系統的目的。
[CAFC原文]
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007), and its predecessors, it would be reasonable to expect that the claims would have been rejected as obvious by the examiner, and, if not, that they would have been found obvious on summary judgment by the district court. But no such thing. The parties have spent hun-dreds of thousand of dollars and several years litigating this issue, and are invited by us to have another go of it in a second trial. Such wasteful litigation does not serve the interests of the inventorship community, nor does it fulfill the purposes of the patent system.
本案涉及的專利包括US 5,780,087 (087專利)與US 5,939,122 (122專利)
US 5,780,087
此案為一種「起泡的方法」，特別是不同於傳統利用蒸氣打奶泡的方式，就是一個容器，有個手搖的活塞，容器內置入液體（牛奶），沿著容器內壁反覆搖動活塞上的桿子，活塞一端的「過濾器（screen）」就可以把牛奶打出泡泡來。
如該案獨立項所描述的步驟，有個容器、置入液體、利用具有過濾器、彈簧等元件的活塞上的桿子將空氣打入液體而產生泡泡！(重點已經標示粗體字)
1. A method for aerating a liquid comprising the steps of:
- providing a container characterized by a height and a diameter, the height being at least two times the diameter;
- placing the liquid into the container;
- introducing a rod terminating in a plunger into the liquid in said container so that the plunger contacts the liquid, the plunger comprising;
-
- a plunger body having a circumference;
- a screen; and
- a spring positioned about the circumference of the plunger body such that the spring is biased to hold the screen in place in contact with, though not sealably connected to, the container; and
- pumping the plunger by moving the rod in a vertical motion such that the plunger passes through the liquid in the container for a time sufficient to aerate the liquid until it takes on a frothy or foamy consistency.
US 5,939,122
此案同樣也是個「起泡方法」，與087案為前後延續案，權利範圍有些差異，增加不少內容，甚至可能擴大了專利範圍（移除如彈簧的元件），但差不多一致地描述類似的動作。
1. A method for aerating a liquid comprising the steps of:
- providing a container characterized by a height and a diameter, the height being at least two times the diameter, the container having an inside wall;
- placing the liquid into the container;
- introducing a rod terminating in a plunger into the liquid in said container so that the plunger contacts the liquid, the plunger comprising:
-
- a plunger body having a circumference; and
- a screen; and
- pumping the plunger by moving the rod in a vertical motion such that the plunger passes through the liquid in the container for a time sufficient to aerate the liquid until it takes on a frothy or foamy consistency,
-
- the plunger body further including means for holding the screen such that, as the plunger passes through the liquid, substantially no liquid passes between the circumference of the plunger body and the inside wall of the container.
- providing a container;
- placing the liquid into the container;
- introducing a rod terminating in a plunger into the liquid in said container so that the plunger contacts the liquid, the plunger comprising:
-
- a plunger body having a bottom surface, with feet-like protrusions on the bottom surface, and
- a screen; and
- pumping the plunger by moving the rod in a vertical motion such that the plunger passes through the liquid in the container for a time sufficient to aerate the liquid until it takes on a frothy or foamy consistency,
- whereby the feet-like protrusions on the bottom surface of the plunger body serve to assist in the agitation of the liquid during the step of pumping the plunger.
告訴人Meyer原本為被告侵權者Bodum在某個時間的獨立業務員（這個關係成為整個訴訟一個重要的侵權意圖判斷的模糊議題），但他掌握了前述兩個專利權，因此於2006年提告，被告Bodum也試圖迴避專利，包括移除上述的環形彈簧49，這個元件用途是讓整個活塞可以靠上容器內壁！（就我的經驗，確實有不少這種裝置沒有彈簧，還是可以運作）
被告侵權物與專利圖式：
Bodum相關產品的網頁：
地方法院陪審團認定有侵權行為，甚至是惡意侵權，判賠5萬美元，也有判給告訴人律師的金額，Bodum於是上訴。
在CAFC解釋專利範圍時，得到專利087案在專利局審查期間曾遭遇前案（US5,580,169，"Ghidini Patent"）而作出權利範圍修正，併入：(1) a dimensional limitation requiring that the container have a height that is at least two times the diameter; and (2) a plunger with a screen and a spring, where the spring is “positioned about the circumference of the plunger body such that the spring is biased to hold the screen in place in contact with, though not sealably connected to, the container.”，顯然容器的大小與其中彈簧的限制為重要的限縮條件而讓該案獲准！
但Meyer接著提出CA案，用不同的專利範圍獲得122案，其中獨立範圍並未出現彈簧，與部份項次未有容器大小的限制條件！
本案爭議之一是Bodum在地方法院提出的辯論不被接受，包括有：
(1) Meyer failed to provide sufficient evidence of an intent to induce infringement;
(2) Bodum could not induce infringement because it believed in good faith that the Meyer patents are invalid;
(3) Bodum could not be liable for inducement because no single third party could perform all the steps in the patented claims, not even Mr. Karvelis; and
(4) even if Mr. Karvelis had per-formed all of the steps of the method claims, his acts could not be acts of “infringement” since he was acting under an implied license created by the umbrella of the parties’ litigation.
在審理過程中，Bodum曾提出前述專利應該是顯而易知的技術，理由是結合了Bodum 3-Cup French Press與再領證案Ghidini Patent，顯然CAFC認同此證據！
Bodum 3-Cup French Press可 能是這個（1982年就販賣，而且沒有改過設計），有兩個特色：1) a carafe with a 2:1 height to diameter ratio; and (2) a plunger mechanism almost identical to that disclosed in the patents-in-suit.
結論：
對於此案，由於地方法院拒絕被告侵權者所提出的幾種對抗方式，CAFC作出以下結論：
- 推翻地方法院簡易判決作出Bodum的起泡劑（frother version 1）侵害Meyer的專利的決定
- 推翻地方法院簡易判決作出Bodum的起泡劑（frother version 2）侵害Meyer的122專利的決定
- 推翻地方法院拒絕Bodum使用先前技術（introducing prior art）阻卻的抗辯以及其他證據的決定
- 推翻地方法院拒絕Bodum所提出的專家證詞證明系爭專利為顯而易知的議題的決定
- 推翻地方法院拒絕Bodum引用不公平對待的證據的決定
- 撤銷地方法院拒絕Bodum提出JMOL（judgment as a matter of law）的請願的決定，該請願是要證實Bodum非惡意侵害，因此撤銷陪審團對惡意侵害的裁決（verdict of willfulness）
- 撤銷地方法院作出提高賠償金與判給Meyer律師的決定（enhancing damages and awarding attorney fees to Meyer）
這件訴訟於是發還地方法院，並要求作出一致的決定！
Ron
資料參考：Patently-O
沒有留言:
張貼留言