這是一個離職員工另外創業成為競爭者的案例，原雇主的優勢是專利權，競爭者的優勢是研發，但是要迴避原雇主的智慧財產，即便你自己認為已經迴避，但專利權是一個邊界模糊的權利，上法院才能知分曉。這也只是創業求生存的眾多考量之一。
會導致專利權邊界模糊的因素之一就是專利範圍解釋時適用均等論，而均等論的適用限制就是審查歷史是否對該元件有所限制（修正），也就是專利權人曾經拋棄過的範圍不得再以均等論解釋，根據本案例「Cross Medical v. Medtronic (Fed. Cir. 2007)」，上下級法院卻對此"原則"作不同的意見，原因就是，即便審查中有修正，但是又關乎這個修正是否僅「粗略關聯」到被告侵權物？或是修正時已經「預見」可以均等的範圍？這成為此案例的重要議題。
Medtronic帶了一堆人離開原公司Cross Medical，重新設計了原公司的骨釘，改變其中的螺紋深度，特別的是，顯然Medtronic研究過，Cross Medical在取得系爭專利時，曾經在答辯過程對骨釘的螺紋深度作出修正，Medtronic認為這部分並非是系爭專利可以主張的均等範圍。系爭專利修改骨釘螺紋深度比其桿的直徑小；Medtronic的設計是大於桿的直徑。
案件資訊：
專利權人/侵權原告：Cross Medical Products, Inc.
侵權被告/上訴人：Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
系爭專利：US 5,474,555
系爭專利揭露一種脊柱植入系統（Spinal implant system），其中裝置可以內部固定脊柱，其中具有錨定器（anchor）和細長的穩定器（stabilizer），錨定器固定在骨頭內，可以接收到穩定器，與螺紋配合穩定固定在骨頭內。
相關Claim 5：
5. A fixation device for the posterior stabilization of one or more bone segments of the spine, comprising:
at least two anchors and an elongated stabilizer comprising a rod having a diameter and a longitudinal axis, said anchors each comprising anchoring means which secure said anchors to said bone segment and an anchor seat means which has a lower bone interface operatively joined to said bone segment and an anchor seat portion spaced apart from said bone interface including a channel to receive said rod; and
securing means which cooperate with each of said anchor seat portions spaced apart from said bone interface and exterior to the bone relative to said elongated rod, said seat means including a vertical axis and first threads which extend in the direction of said vertical axis toward said lower bone interface to a depth below the diameter of the rod when it is in the rod receiving channel, and said securing means including second threads which cooperate with the first threads of the seat means to cause said rod to bear against said channel through the application of substantially equal compressive forces by said securing means in the direction of the vertical axis and applied on either side along said longitudinal axis of said channel.
以上標註底線的部分為修正時補入。
"said seat means including a vertical axis and first threads which extend in the direction of said vertical axis toward said lower bone interface to a depth below the diameter of the rod"
此圖為法院根據系爭專利圖式來理解的根據：
本案其實歷經兩次地方法院判決，以及兩次CAFC判決。在第一次地方法院判決中，判定侵權成立與專利有效，並發出永久禁制令，不過到了CAFC推翻地院判決。之後回到地方法院，在第二次地方法院判決中，又因判定侵權成立而發出永久禁制令。特別的是，第二次地方法院判決係針對被告Medtronic重新設計的骨釘固定裝置，Medtronic產品並未落入專利範圍的文義讀取，而是以均等論適用而判定侵權成立。
在地方法院階段，法官雖得知系爭專利請求項5在專利審查階段曾經作出修正，但認為這部分修正限縮的內容為粗略關聯（"tangentially related"），此例外並不產生禁反言，因此不適用FESTO判例的均等論限制。（"In reaching this finding, the district court determined that a narrowing amendment to claim 5 during prosecution was only "tangentially related" to the accused equivalent and thus not subject to an estoppel under Festo."）
經Medtronic上訴CAFC，Cross Medical針對所修正的請求項內容認為這是沒有太多關係的tangential relation，而且修正當下並非可預見被告所設計的裝置，因此專利範圍仍適用均等論，不過，在此第二次CAFC判決中，法官重新確認第一次CAFC判決，認為以"tangential relation criterion"克服Festo判例適用過於狹隘，且本案也不適用可預見性（foreseeability）原則。
"This court reaffirms the principle that the tangential relation criterion for overcoming the Festo presumption is very narrow and finds that neither the narrow tangential rebuttal principle nor the foreseeability principle applies to this case."
Festo案（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/festo-festo-corp-v-shoketsu-kinzoku.html）曾討論到（重要）：「粗略關聯的例外（tangential relation exception）」要求專利權人證明審查過程的限縮修正的理由並沒有超出與相關議題中均等範圍的粗略關聯，也就是要專利權人證明當時的修正與目前想要主張的均等範圍僅一點點相關，不影響均等論使用。
"As discussed in the Festo opinion, the tangentially related criterion requires a patentee to demonstrate that "the rationale underlying the narrowing amendment [bore] no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question." Festo VIII, 535 U.S. at 740, 122 S. Ct. 1831. In other words, this criterion asks whether the reason for the narrowing amendment was peripheral, or not directly relevant, to the alleged equivalent."
CAFC法官認為本案專利權人Cross Medical並沒有成功提出以粗略關聯例外或可預見性等理由克服Festo適用的證明，於是判決，要排除Festo判例審查歷史禁反言的適用的「粗略關聯的例外（tangential relation exception）」不適用本案"such a surrender is not tangential"，其實也不能如此狹隘地以tangential relation exception克服Festo適用。
本案駁回地院判決，發回重審。
my two cents:
或許，使用到tangential relation exception克服Festo判例適用有效，卻已經是"窮途末路"，均等論被禁反言排除後，對於專利權人確實有影響，但以tangential relation exception提出反對意見仍不足以對抗「審查歷史禁反言」對於「均等論」的重大影響。
本部落格對「tangential relation exception」會有其他報導。
CAFC判決：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/05-1415.pdf
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/wmc2g0xv8rqy0h1z5kz90rolvmeh39wu）
資料參考：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/03/doctrine_of_equ.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言