政府會不會侵犯自己核准的專利？答案是，會；但美國政府說，不會！理由之一是，這類案件應該交給CFC(Court of Federal Claims)審理，而這類法院沒有陪審團，所以...不會有民間的意見，只會討論合理的賠償爭議。其實主要論點是，美國政府不會是「侵權者」，而是站在是否同意支付賠償或授權費用的官方立場。
涉及法條28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)：
(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
其中規定與美國政府的侵權官司應該在CFC進行審理，審理的內容包括使用與製造專利保護的發明所涉及的賠償與訴訟費用，如果專利權人為獨立發明人、非營利組織，或是小實體企業，可在美國政府使用與製造相關專利發明的5年期間提出訴訟。
專利權人：Haddad Michael A
專屬被授權人：Astornet Technologies, Inc.
侵權被告：NCR Government Systems, LLC; MorphoTrust USA, LLC; and BAE Systems, Inc.
系爭專利：US7,639,844
US7,639,844關於一種機場車輛閘門進出系統（Airport vehicular gate entry access system），這是關於機場人員來往進出的安全措施，算是"反恐"的措施之一吧？其中實施方式主要是提供一個手持的安全確認裝置，配合軟體的工作，確認授權資訊、員工狀態，甚至包括簽發臨時出入證等功能。
Claim 1：
1. An automated access control system for securing airport vehicular gates and airport sterile areas comprising:
an ID authenticator, wherein a credential to
be authenticated is presented, a credential physical aspect and
embedded security features are analyzed to determine the possibility of
any tempering or forgery and provide an authenticity risk rating, said
ID authenticator comprises means to read non-encoded credentials,
whereas said ID authenticator generates an authentication data record
comprising presented credential information and authentication rating,
a standardized credential reader means for
reading a credential encoded with personal identification to be used at
entry point into the airport sterile areas and automatically collects
data to build individual real time records;
a software application for recovering
information from the standardized credential reader, wherein one or more
of the following processing is performed:
real time records are checked searching for a
credential collected information match; individual suspicious status is
checked against a security list stored in a system database; employee
records are checked to determine if the individual is an employee; the
type of entry, visitor, employee, contractor, supplier, or vendor, is
determined; and admission is processed as entry or re-entry of the
individuals,
a central processing unit for receiving information from the standardized credential reader and the ID authenticator;
wherein, upon a credential reading, the
automated access control system automatically determines the source of
the credential data record, and automatically extracts personal
information to be checked against a security list, TSA NO-FLY list,
SELECTEE list, other alternative credentials; whereas upon the
credential authentication, the automated access control system
automatically extracts authentication information from the
authentication data record, and subsequently displays a warning window,
as a result of the individual credentials match and ID forgery risks
rating contained in the authentication data record. 請求項1界定一種用於機場車輛閘門的自動進出控制系統，其中具有憑證讀取器以及相關處理憑證管理與認證的軟體，使用者可以使用身份認證裝置進行認證，進而執行自動進出機場的動作。主架構與一般自動停車場無異，特色大概就在於因為"機場本身特殊性"產生的技術特點，比如可疑名單、安全名單、禁飛名單（"security list, TSA NO-FLY list, SELECTEE list, other alternative credentials"）、進出入人員身份頗為繁複（"the type of entry, visitor, employee, contractor, supplier, or vendor"）。註：美國運輸安全管理局（TSA：Transportation Security Administration）。
對於侵權告訴本身，美國政府採用不同公司建構整個機場安全系統，對於一件專利侵權來說，被告為國運輸安全管理局（TSA），但分為三個「非直接侵權」訴訟議題，對NCR Government Systems, LLC; MorphoTrust USA, LLC; and BAE Systems, Inc.三間公司提出誘使侵權（induced infringement）告訴。直覺地，這些被告公司都認知本身技術僅應用了系爭專利的某部分，並無侵權事實，對於原告來說，需要舉證引誘侵權被告有鼓勵買方（美國政府）構成侵權的確實行為的證據。
"To prove inducement of infringement, the patentee must ‘show that the accused inducer took an affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.’ ” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC, 783 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015)"
訴訟撤銷可參考以下法規，也是地方法院所依據撤銷告訴的理由：
Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.
(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal
statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:
(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.
(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.
But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.
程序上，地方法院撤銷此訴訟，理由是侵權告訴其實是針對美國政府，應由CFC（Court of Federal Claims）審理，結果CAFC同意，於是本訴訟被撤銷。
"In that motion the government explained that “the simplest solution is for plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss both this action and the district court action, and then refile his section 1498 action in the Court of Federal Claims.”"
不過，在相同結果下，CAFC論述並不同意地方法院根據Rule 41作出的結論，認為被告NCR、MorphoTrust論點並不滿足Rule 41的適用。
判決文：
https://app.box.com/s/2wke0kk84y2nxj5ke0u4dkjya2zadooq
資料補充：
CFC(Court of Federal Claims)處理美國政府訴訟案例的管轄法院，一些介紹可參考：
美國聯邦索賠法院 - Court of Federal Claims（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/court-of-federal-claims.html）
跟美國政府有關的侵權訴訟的案例：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/cfc.html
資訊參考：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/09/government-infringe-impossible.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言