一個涉及均等論判斷態度的決定

一個涉及均等論的判決
Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech (Fed. Cir. 2013)


這又是一件離職員工與原僱用公司的侵權訴訟主角Shalom Kattan原本是GuideTech的員工，之後離開公司新創公司Brilliant Instruments，照Patently-O的講法，GuideTech以專利侵權威脅Shalom Kattan，而Shalom Kattan提出無侵權的確認之訴（declaratory judgment），相關專利是US6,226,231, US6,091,671與US6,181,649（申請人是Guide Technology, Inc.，發明人都是Shalom Kattan），這三件專利都是討論電路中輸出入訊號的時差問題。

如US6,226,231，分流器、電容器與電流電路的平行關係是界定於附屬範圍，而獨立項界定出各量測電路在各個通道中是彼此平行的：
1. A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between signal events, said analyzer comprising:

a signal channel that receives an input signal;

a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel in parallel with each other, each said measurement circuit being configured to receive said input signal, measure an occurrence of a first event of said input signal with respect to a predetermined time reference and output a time signal corresponding to the measurement of said occurrence; and

a processor circuit in communication with said signal channel, wherein said processor circuit is configured to receive and compare said time signals from said measurement circuits to each other to determine a time interval between said first event measured by a first said measurement circuit and an event measured by a second said measurement circuit.

8. A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between signal events, said analyzer comprising:

a signal channel that receives an input signal;

a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel in parallel with each other, each said measurement circuit including

a comparator that receives said input signal and a reference signal, compares said input signal to said reference signal and outputs a binary signal responsively to said comparison, and

an interpolator circuit, wherein said interpolator circuit is configured to measure a time period between a first event in said binary signal and a reference event of a time base signal and to output a time signal corresponding to said time period; and

a processor circuit in communication with said signal channel, wherein said processor circuit is configured to receive and compare said time signals from said measurement circuits to each other to determine a time interval between said first event measured by a first said measurement circuit and an event measured by a second said measurement circuit.

10. The analyzer as in claim 8, wherein each said interpolator includes

a trigger circuit that receives said binary signal and that outputs a trigger signal at a triggering level upon occurrence of said first event and at a non-triggering level upon occurrence of a reference event that follows said first event,

a first current circuit having a current source or a current sink,

a second current circuit having

a current sink where said first current circuit has a current source, or

a current source where said first current circuit has a current sink,

a capacitor,

a shunt,

wherein said shunt and said capacitor are operatively disposed in parallel with respect to said first current circuit,

wherein said shunt is disposed between said first current circuit and said second current circuit, and

wherein said shunt receives said trigger signal and is selectable between conducting and non-conducting states between said first current circuit and said second current circuit depending upon said trigger signal so that

said shunt is driven to said conducting state from said non-conducting state upon receiving said trigger signal at said triggering level and

said shunt is driven to said non-conducting state from said conducting state upon receiving said trigger signal at said non-triggering level.

本案在地方法院的簡易判決（summary judgment）認為Brilliant Instruments並無侵害上述GuideTech的專利，於是GuideTech上訴到聯邦法院，聯邦法院駁回部份地方法院的判決，認為在均等論（doctrine of equivalents）的判斷下，Brilliant Instruments侵權。

均等論的適用，此案例引述了判例Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997)，可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/blog-post_23.html

在上述幾個專利中，專利範圍界定時間間隔分析器（time interval analyzer）的分流器（shunt）、電容器（capacitor）與第一電流電路為平行設置（此案寫為operatively disposed in parallel），而被告侵權物雖有電流器，但是卻是在第一電流電路內部，並非是平行設置，因此判斷為不滿足文義讀取，但對於專利權人的專家來看，這兩者在function-way-result測試下為均等。聯邦法院法官於是作出類似結論，任何人都可以判斷出被告侵權物中的電容器是設在電流電路中，而非專利範圍所界定為平行設置，但是在此技術領域中，電路元件位置的改變是否為實質具有意義的改變？


就此案來看，聯邦法院法官同意專利權人GuideTech的解釋（updated on Feb.25, 2013，顯見逐元件判斷均等效果為一個比較好而避免語言表達差異的方式），認為地方法院簡易判決中並未逐元件、逐限制條件判斷是否有均等效果，因此發回重審。


Ron
資料參考：Patently-O
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1018.pdf