ITC管不到數位內容 - In ClearCorrect v. ITC and Align Tech (CAFC 2015)

ITC案經上訴到CAFC，縱有法官持不同意見，但是多數CAFC法官認為ITC（美國國際貿易委員會）對進入美國的數位內容沒有管轄權，ITC僅能管實質有形的物體。

涉及法條：
Section 337, Tariff Act of 1930, Investigations of Unfair Practices in Import Trade
...
Finding: If the accused imports are determined to infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent, copyright, registered trademark, or mask work, the USITC may issue orders excluding the products from entry into the United States and/or directing the violating parties to cease and desist from certain actions. Where such infringement is shown, injury need not be shown to establish a violation of section 337. In cases involving other unfair methods of competition or unfair acts, if the USITC finds that the importation of the accused articles substantially injures or threatens to substantially injure an industry, prevents the establishment of such an industry, or restrains or monopolizes trade and commerce in the United States, it may also issue exclusion and/or cease and desist orders. USITC orders are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period. Appeals of USITC determinations may be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Violators of USITC section 337 orders are liable for civil penalties of up to $100,000 a day or twice the value of the imported articles. (For further information, see section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337.)

爭議涉及ITC法源Section 337的條文，規定ITC可以管轄是否准予侵犯美國專利、著作權、商標、光罩等物品（the "article"）進口美國，ITC判決可以禁止物品進口，或停止某些工作。主旨以侵權與否發出禁令，並不涉及損害，但仍可因避免傷害產業、壟斷等不公平競爭的情況而對進口物發出禁令。

案件資訊（In ClearCorrect v. ITC and Align Tech (CAFC)）：

原告"Align Technology, Inc."於ITC對"ClearCorrect Operating, LLC"等被告提起侵權禁令告訴。
系爭專利：
U.S. 6,217,325、U.S. 6,705,863、U.S. 6,626,666、U.S. 8,070,487、U.S. 6,471,511、U.S. 6,722,880、U.S. 7,134,874

相關爭議是一種用在牙科矯正牙齒用的建模技術，被告ClearCorrect的技術在於掃描病患牙齒，並建立數位重建的資訊，這是一種數位3D影像，用於建立實體「熱塑成型」模型。然而，被告物品（the "article"）為數位模型、數位數據與醫療計畫，這些是「虛擬」物件，並非具體物品。

ITC行政法官判決ClearCorrect侵權成立，因此發出被告禁止電子輸入數位模型到美國的禁令（從Pakistan輸入）。

簡單列舉其中880案的Claim 1如下，明顯是個軟體發明，用以建立牙齒位移的資訊。
Claim 1:
A method for making a predetermined series of dental incremental position adjustment appliances,
said method comprising:
a) obtaining a digital data set representing an initial tooth arrangement;
b) obtaining a repositioned tooth arrangement based on the initial tooth arrangement;
c) obtaining a series of successive digital data sets representing a series of successive
tooth arrangements; and
d) fabricating a predetermined series of dental incremental position adjustment appliances based on the series of successive digital data sets, wherein said appliances comprise polymeric shells having
cavities shaped to receive and resiliently reposition teeth, and said appliances correspond to the series of successive tooth arrangements progressing from the initial to the repositioned tooth arrangement.

325案的Claim 21為建立齒模的方法。

Claim 21:

A method for fabricating a dental appliance, said method comprising:

providing a digital data set representing a modified tooth arrangement for a patient;

controlling a fabrication machine based on the digital data set to produce a positive model of the modified tooth arrangement; and

producing the dental appliance as a negative of the positive model.

CAFC階段：
經被告上訴CAFC，爭議在於Section 337是否賦予ITC管轄數位內容？不論各方提出的大字典如何解釋，最後CAFC採用ITC自己在1924年發表的字典的解釋，表示「article」為一般用品。

...

數位內容傳輸不能解釋為一般海關的輸入。

並且，CAFC認為「article」有被製造、被生產、被處理與被挖掘的意思，即便用較廣的方式解釋，但仍不能涵蓋數位資訊。
"We recognize that section 1337 covers both articles that were “made” and articles that were “produced, processed, or mined.” While this language in section 1337 perhaps suggests a broader scope for section 1337 than for section 271(g), nothing in section 1337 suggests coverage of information, in addition to articles under section 271(g)."

最後更針對ITC的立法歷史的異議，就是避免輸入商務交易傷害美國本土企業，如果涵蓋過廣的範圍，會有不公平競爭的疑慮。
"The provision relating to unfair methods of competition in the importation of goods is broad
enough to prevent every type and form of unfair practice and is, therefore, a more adequate protection to American industry than any antidumping statute the country ever had."

結論：
在Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. (1984).判決中，似乎毫無疑義地認為ITC的判決效果可及於電子傳送的數位資料，但ITC管轄範圍因為337條文"article"是否僅指為"material things"而有疑義，CAFC認為電子傳送的內容或許有具體的特徵，比如「電子」本身為有量的物質，不過，一般常識都可曉得這與字面上"material things"有明顯差異，因此CAFC認為ITC對數位內容進口沒有管轄權。

一些爭議應該交與國會用更高的立場來解決。

my two cents:
雖我沒有能力評斷，不過曉得美國案例之所以有些參考價值，或說有趣，就是因為從頭到尾都表示出一些價值觀，司法判決的邏輯，或是依循的前例都很有智慧（我認為）。

侵權成立不代表ITC有管轄權，這有點在玩文字遊戲，各方列舉很多種字典來證明"article"的意思，連引用了字典意思還有爭議，因為很多語言意思會隨著時間演變，因此不少法官有不同意見，但是就「海關」來看，是否管得到網路上傳送的數位資訊，真是有待商榷。

CAFC判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1527.Opinion.11-6-2015.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/66ff9dubunkv4o0tt1e7939unr7usyr2）

資料參考：http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/11/expansion-electronic-importation.html

其他參考：
ITC介紹：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/10/itc.html
有關Chevron Two-Step：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/cafcitc.html

Ron