有關授權金合約與專利誤用的早期最高法院案例 - Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)

Syllabus
The royalty provisions of a patent licensing agreement which provides for royalties for the use of machines incorporating certain patents are not enforceable for the period beyond the expiration of the last patent incorporated in the machine.

那個年代的專利沒一件是3C的，多半是機械、農業技術等，現在看來，都是很有趣的東西。每一件美國專利期限則是保障獲准後17年，這件爭議就是有關這個期限、授權金與合約內容。

35 U.S.C. 154 Contents and term of patent; provisional rights.
（1964年（部分））
"Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. . . . "
（現行）
(a)(1) CONTENTS.-Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof.
(2) TERM.-Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.

爭議有關「農業收割機（hop picking machine）」的多件專利的授權金，相關合約載明（並未明確指明專利期限到期的問題）授權金包括每一個收割季（hop picking season）至少繳交美元500元，或是每收成200磅收取3.33元美元，繳交其中較多的，這宣稱是一個總平均值，意思是即便專利權到期，因為這是一個當時合理報償的分期付款，應該持續支付。
合約中載有12件專利，其中有7件關於專利權人Thys製造而賣給提出訴訟的被授權人Brulotte的收割機，不過這些專利卻已經在1957年之前過期，原本的被授權人於是拒絕付錢，即便合約並未明確指明專利權到期後的問題，原被授權人提告認為原專利權人不當主張專利權。

法院認為，每個收割機價格可能攤為平均收費，但是每年收與的費用並非是收割機售價的一部分，這是使用費用，不應在專利過期後繼續支付。

最高法院提出兩個釐清爭議的問題，並據此作出決定。
是否這個授權合約因為專利到期後產生誤用專利權而壟斷的行為？
是否支付過期專利權利金延長壟斷時間而違反反托辣斯？

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:

'1. Whether it is a misuse to include in a license agreement a provision which perpetuates the monopoly of a licensed patent by a requirement that royalties be paid for the use of the invention after the patent has expired and the invention had been dedicated to the public.

'2. Whether it is a misuse or an antitrust violation to include in a license agreement a provision which extends the monopoly of a patent to unpatented subject matter by a provision which requires the payment of post-expiration royalties.'

審理法院以及之後的最高法院即作出決定，因為授權金為合理使用專利權的費用，皆認定原專利權人不當主張專利權。法源可以溯及憲法保障發明人（專利權人）有一個有限時間的壟斷權利，而此反映到專利法35 U.S.C. 154。

後語，是否憲法提供的權利保障超越合約，仍應看簽約時考量的各種條件是否有損市場公平競爭、違反反托辣斯等原則而定，但是否專利到期應該支付相關費用，專利有效時的授權金是否攤平在每年的費用，種種問題，都應該是簽約時應該注意的事項。

這件 Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)成為眾多有關授權金爭議的引用案例。

補充(updated on Jan. 8, 2015)：
感謝網友Joseph Wu提出以上爭點的專業翻譯：
第一個爭點應為「在授權合約中放入專利權到期後仍然要支付授權金而持續延長專利壟斷的條款是否為（締約自由的）濫用」（為了簡明原因沒有逐字翻譯）；
第二個爭點應為「授權合約中要求持續支付專利到期後權利金－其將專利壟斷延伸至不得專利之主體－是否為（遞約自由的）濫用或者違背反托辣斯。

判決文：
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/29/case.html

Ron