對照案例：
修正不一定限制專利範圍 - Business Objects v. Microstrategy (Fed. Cir. 2005)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/04/business-objects-v-microstrategy-fed.html
案件資訊：
系爭專利：US6,032,543
專利權人：EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION（經移轉）
侵權被告：ALLPURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
下圖為判決書中所引用TAKEONE裝置的分解圖，特別以系爭專利的用語命名當中結構件，其中傳輸件（130）包括有支撐件（150）、用來密封裝置關節的密封物（165）、薄膜物（166），以及注射器（170），另有可"拆除"的容置傳輸件注射針的容置部（135）。此裝置功能就是將液態物自傳輸件送出，或是引入，液態物比如是藥品。
系爭專利Claim 1界定一從容器引流或抽出介質（如液體）的裝置，其中包括：至少一可移除、可替換的傳送介質進入或出來自一容器的「傳輸件（transfer member）」，一端設有注射器（針）；以及一可以固定傳輸件在容器出口的「固定件」，其中具有個容納注射器的容置部（magazine part）。
1. A device for one of introduction and withdrawal of a medium into a container having an aperture formed therein for receiving said device, said device comprising:
at least one removable, replaceable transfer member for transferring a medium into and out of the container, said transfer member comprising a holder, a seal for sealing said aperture, a hypodermic needle having a tip, said needle supported within said holder in a longitudinal direction thereof, wherein the seal has a first end comprised of a bellows-shaped part sealingly attached to said holder, and a second end comprising a self-sealing membrane portion interiorly formed at an end of said bellows part, said membrane portion for sealing said aperture of said container, wherein said bellows-shaped part surrounds said needle and is deformable in a longitudinal direction, said membrane portion pierceable by the tip of the needle to form a sealable channel;
a fastening device for sealingly securing the transfer member via the seal with the aperture of the container, thereby forming a closed system, said fastening device comprising a flanged part sealingly secured in the aperture and formed with at least one hole therethrough in communication with an interior of said container, a magazine part for removable securement of said at least one transfer member, and a fastening and centering means for removable locking of the magazine part to a flanged part in a position wherein the membrane portion sealingly abuts against the hole of the flanged part so as to accept the hypodermic needle for introduction into and withdrawal from the container through the membrane portion and the hole.
從系爭專利的示意圖來看，與被告侵權物TAKEONE的樣式確實頗為相像，連元件之間可"拆除"的特徵都類似，這時就看專利範圍解釋了！
根據CAFC判決文，被告AllPure認為雖然告訴人，甚至是法院，將他們的產品「拆開（dis-assembly）」，也就是指「傳輸件（transfer member）」與「容置部（magazine part）」之間的狀態，但是將產品拆開並非是系爭專利請求項所稱的「可移除（removable）」。
侵權判斷：
[文義讀取]
專利範圍解釋時，客觀來看，如果將一個完整的產品拆除（dis-assemble），應該不同於一般對「removable」的解釋，removable應該是強調結構上的特性是可以被移除的，而且產品製造時是以兩個元件分別製造的方式，不同於透過組裝將不同元件結合而最終產品並不以「可移除」作為特色的方式。因此，應該一致認為「文義不讀取」。
[均等論]
於是討論系爭專利範圍適用「均等論」，而均等論討論請求項範圍的「手段、功能與功效」是否均等於被告侵權物，並同時輔以「禁反言」限制均等範圍。而禁反言的產生主要端賴於系爭專利請求項審查時的歷史過程是否曾經拋棄了特定範圍。
"Even without literal infringement of a certain claim limitation, a patentee may establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if an element of the accused device “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result as the claim limitation.”"
[禁反言]
根據本案系爭專利在審查過程中為了獲准專利而作出的修正確實是為了規避先前技術的阻礙，也就是修正併入的技術特徵是未見於引用先前技術的特徵，這表示產生禁反言，專利權人不可以「均等論」重新取回已經放棄的專利範圍。
[修正的範圍討論]
申請專利範圍修正時，是否對侵權議題中討論的技術元件放棄了部分的均等範圍，如此案，修正時對於前述傳輸件與容置部的關係限制在「removable, replaceable transfer member（可移除、可替換）」。
[法院意見摘錄]
地院階段在簡易判決（summary judgment）中作出侵權不成立的決定，主要理由就是被告侵權物TAKEONE中的傳輸件並未有可移除、可替換的特性，不符文義侵害（no literal infringement）；
地院意見：『The district court also noted that “take off” and “put apart” are significantly different from “take apart” or disassemble』，表示take off, put apart與take apart或是disassemble實質不同。而TAKEONE裝置的密封方式並非是針對可移除而設計。
專利權人於是上訴CAFC，除了以上爭議外，在討論均等論時，CAFC態度是專利範圍修正理由是否是為了取得專利權的實質技術修正，這個態度自然是來自CAFC在2003的案例「Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 344 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc)」。修正將產生禁反言，除非專利權人證明符合以下條件其中之一：
(1) the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the application;
(2) the rationale underlying the amendment bears no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question; or
(3) there is some other reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the equivalent.
即便有修正，以上幾點顯然是主張專利權可以適用均等論的理由。不過本案經過法院判斷，即便專利權人認為曾經修正的內容是「擴大了」專利範圍，而沒有產生阻礙均等適用的禁反言，不過，如以下節錄內容，在修正時加入的技術是為了區隔先前技術，因此認為請求項在答辯時的修正已經產生禁反言。
本案因此被判斷侵權不成立。
判決原文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1140.Opinion.9-25-2014.1.PDF
資料參考：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/doctrine-equivalents-narrowing.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言