根據美國最高法院幾天前的判決（Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)），重申地院被賦予更廣的裁量權可以判給合理的律師費用給勝訴的一方。
35 U.S.C. 285 Attorney fees.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
根據Patently-O的資料，過去並未有敗訴方承攬所有訴訟費用這種似乎合理的規則，而僅針對完全沒有根據而興訟的某一方需要負責費用。此案例在CAFC階段時，限制地方法院判斷哪個案子為特殊情況（exceptional cases）的裁量權。到了最高法院，顯然此意見被駁回，認為地院應該具有判給何方合理律師費的權力。
所謂特殊的案子(exceptional case)，在最高法院案例"Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc."中，法官幾乎一致決定所謂特殊的案子簡單來說就是不同於其他在訴訟案的實質強度的案子，或是不合理興訟的案子。因此地方法院可以自行定奪何謂特殊的案子。
此案中，ICON Health & Fitness Inc.擁有美國專利US6,019,710，關於一種橢圓移動的運動器材，但雖ICON為運動器材製造商，卻從未製造如此專利的器材，而侵權被告Octane Fitness也是運動器材製造商，但製造了也是橢圓運動的器材Q45, Q47。
看權利範圍可以看到腳踏板與前端承軸的連接關係形成一個橢圓形式的移動軌跡，並且可以調整橢圓的尺寸，這是侵權判斷的主要依據。
During this continued reciprocating motion, the hinged connection between first end 50 of each foot rail 46 and 48 and second end 72 of each stroke rail 66 and 68 rotates in a substantially elliptical path as depicted by dash line 108 in FIG. 3. This elliptical path results in each foot pad 58 also traveling in a substantially elliptical path similar to that occurring during walking or jogging.
1. An exercise apparatus comprising:
(a) a frame configured for resting on a ground surface;
(b)
a pair of spaced apart foot rails each having a first end and an
opposing second end, each foot rail being configured to receive a
corresponding foot of a user;
(c) a pair
of stroke rails each having a first end and an opposing second end, the
second end of each stroke rail being hingedly attached to the first end
of a corresponding foot rail;
(d) means
for connecting each stroke rail to the frame such that linear
reciprocating displacement of the first end of each stroke rail results
in displacement of the second end of each stroke rail in a substantially
elliptical path; and
(e) means for selectively varying the size of the substantially elliptical path that the second end of each stroke rail travels.
地院判決Octane侵權不成立，Octane於是要求法院命令ICON返還律師費用，認為ICON的主張並無理由，而且是欺騙的濫訴行為。但地院否決Octane的請求，認為ICON雖敗訴，但是其中卻沒有浮誇與無理由。Octane於是上訴到CAFC，CAFC仍維持地院判決。
CAFC相關決定：
但最高法院認為CAFC過於僵化，發回重審。
最高法院判決文相關段落：
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare (Supreme Court 2014)
在另一最高法院案例"Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc."中，同樣也是一致認為，上訴法院應以abuse-of-discretion標準來審視地方法院所做出特殊案子的決定。此處"abuse-of-discretion"標準(濫用裁量權)是指地方法院應該依照證據說話，避免錯誤判斷。
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1163_8o6g.pdf
後語：
Patentdocs.org部落格作者認為，這樣下放地院的律師費用裁量權提供法官很大的權責可以判斷何謂"濫用司法"，而上訴法院卻難以翻案，這是對所謂的Patent trolls不利，因為由他們興起的訴訟很容易被認為是濫訴。
Ron
資料參考：Patently-O, http://www.patentdocs.org/
沒有留言:
張貼留言