在美國緬因州地方法院提出的侵權告訴的基本資料：
地院案號：2:12-cv-00333
Order on Motion to Stay：http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/2:2012cv00333/43821/158/0.pdf?ts=1411542635
系爭專利：US6,724,403
被告侵權產品：Microsoft Windows 7/8作業系統
原告：SurfCast, Inc.
在的網頁中得知Surfcast有IBM的背景，網頁也介紹了他們的專利定義了何謂動態磚（Tiles），並且提出了他們獲得的相關4件專利：
IPR程序：
IPR案號：IPR2013-00292
被告的微軟也搭上AIA的好處，對系爭專利提出IPR。
不過，其中特別的是（詭異），系爭專利專利權人Surfcast要求暫停訴訟，反而是微軟希望繼續訴訟！微軟的理由是，IPR並不會簡化訴訟，即便IPR作出決定，也仍有上訴的機會，也無法釐清法院判斷的侵權相關事實。這樣看來，或許微軟沒有把握可以無效該專利，擔心IPR反而強化了專利權，侵權就如此成立，這是我自己推斷的！但是Surfcast似乎相對對自己的專利有信心。或是兩個公司過去有恩怨，想說這次講個清楚。
（補充，從http://adlervermillion.com/得知一些支持以上論點的言論："At a claim construction hearing, the defendant can choose from two strategies. First, it can argue for very broad definitions of the claim terms. If the claims are broadly defined, its easier to invalidate them with prior art. But there’s also a danger. If the judge grants the broad definition, but the defendant can’t invalidate the patent with prior art, the defendant will almost certainly be found infringing on the broadly defined (and valid) claim."）
地院隨後否決Surfcast意見，也就是不論IPR如何，訴訟會繼續審理。
不過，IPR還是先作出決定了：專利無效。
微軟於是將此無效決定交付地方法院，不過，也不是要求訴訟終結審定侵權無理由，而是要求暫停訴訟，有待專利權人Surfcast提出上訴！
（以上都與一般情況有些出入，頗為玩味）
此件IPR程序仍有可參考的一些議題，比如Surfcast曾想要提出修正、新增專利範圍，但都被否決，這與一般IPR情況一致。可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/ipr-ipr2012-00027.html
IPR討論：（10/14/2014 Final Decision：https://app.box.com/s/3q2z0jlpezxlg6lhf5zfc4uzynbk1mp6）
微軟同時提交不同IPR，但PTAB綜合審理：
無效理由以及先前技術文獻，包括微軟自己的文件：
摘要引證案內容：
Chen（US5432932）揭露可以即時變動的統計資訊畫面：
Brown（US6278448）是一種可以組合各種資訊的網頁技術：
Duhault（US6456334）揭露在window header上顯示影片資訊的技術：
Duperrouzel（US6832355）揭露的網頁畫面有Tiles：
一瞥微軟文獻：
由上可知，動態磚的技術其實是一些XML tag的動態變化，若解釋為active desktop的功能，顯然微軟本身已具備此技術，就系爭專利的請求項文字上，對比並不困難，只是難以反映出視覺上在icon上顯示即時資訊的特性，如果不是在IPR內，應該仍有機會修正顯出其特殊性。
US6,724,403
Claim 1：
1. A method executed by a device under the control of a program, said device including a memory for storing said program, said method comprising:
selecting a plurality of information sources;
partitioning a visual display of the device into an array of tiles, wherein each tile in said array of tiles is associated with an information source in said plurality of information sources;
assigning a first refresh rate to a first tile of said array of tiles and a second refresh rate to a second tile of said array of tiles;
updating information from a first information source in said plurality of information sources presented to said first tile in accordance with said first refresh rate; and
simultaneously
updating information from a second information source in said plurality of information sources presented to said second tile in accordance with said second refresh rate.
Claim 22：
22. An electronic readable memory to direct an electronic device to function in a specified manner, comprising:
a first set of instructions to control simultaneous communication with a plurality of information sources;
a second set of instructions to arrange a display into an array of tiles;
a third set of instructions to associate a first information source of said plurality of information sources to a first tile of said array of tiles and a second information source of said plurality of information sources to a second tile of said array of tiles;
a fourth set of instructions to retrieve information from said first information source in accordance with a first retrieval rate and retrieve information from said second information source in accordance with a second retrieval rate; and
a fifth set of instructions to present information to said first tile in accordance with said first retrieval rate and present information to said second tile in accordance with said second retrieval rate.
結論：
系爭專利claims 1-52專利無效。
新聞可參考：
http://www.law360.com/articles/587192/microsoft-gets-surfcast-display-patent-nixed-in-aia-review
http://adlervermillion.com/surfcast-v-microsoft-patent-claim-contruction-for-ui-tiles/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言