用詞解析2 – Integral等
解析案例 - American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
被告/被上訴人：Geoquip, Inc. from District Court of Virginia, Bay Machinery Corp. from District Court of California
系爭專利：US5,355,964
緣起：
此件由北卡地方法院等多間地方法院的判決上訴CAFC，案例涉及專利範圍解釋與侵權議題，而且原告甚至在不同的地方法院分別提出7件訴訟，主張被告Geoquip, Inc.所製造與販售的施工設備（打樁設備）侵權。有趣的是，其中兩間地方法院（Virginia, California）對同一事實見解不一，有些專利範圍解釋不同，但同樣認定侵權不成立。
US5,355,964專利關於一種具有配重功能的打樁與拔樁振動組件，專利範圍即界定此振動組件，主要元件有殼體、旋轉載於接收體的金屬配重元件，配重元件有柱體齒輪部與整合其中的「eccentric weight portion（偏重部）」，偏重部有「insert-receiving area（插入接收區）」，插入接收區置入有一金屬插入構件，與配重元件搭配配重。
Claim 1 of '964：
1. A vibratory assembly for imparting a vibratory force to a pile, comprising:
a housing having at least one counterweight receiving means;
a counterweight rotatably carried in said receiving means for rotation about a rotational axis, said counterweight having a cylindrical gear portion and an eccentric weight portion integral with said cylindrical gear portion, said eccentric weight portion having at least one insert-receiving area formed therein, said counterweight being made of a first metal;
a solid insert member securely positioned in one of said at least one insert-receiving areas said solid insert member being made of a second metal having a specific gravity greater than the specific gravity of said first metal, and a melting point temperature of 328° C. or greater; and
at least one driving means operatively connected to said counterweight and adapted to rotate said counterweight about its rotational axis.
這個裝置常見工地在打地基的機器上：
如以下圖示，元件40是配重元件，其中有偏重部43：
被告Geoquip, Inc、Bay Machinery Corp.被告侵權產品是由Hydraulic Power Systems, Inc.所購買的，這裡顯示Hydraulic網站上公開的被告侵權物Model 250與500：
經原告上訴CAFC時，CAFC法官解釋專利範圍時，特別針對三個用語的解釋，並整理兩個地方法院的解釋內容，相關用詞包括："Eccentric Weight Portion"、"Integral"以及"Insert-Receiving Area"。這個判決有趣的地方除了是挑出有爭議的專利用詞來討論以外，更是可以看出法院對於解釋專利範圍的嚴謹之處，包括每個爭議的用語解釋時除了一般理解外，都考量了請求項、說明書、審查歷史等內容，因此值得參考。
經地方法院簡易判決後，均認為被告侵權物侵權不成立，理由是被告侵權物並未讀入系爭專利請求項範圍中的"integral"與"insert-receiving area"等用詞。
解釋專利範圍：
--"Eccentric Weight Portion"
法院意見摘錄（參考請求項用語、說明書與審查歷史）：
"The claims do not explicitly define the term “eccentric weight portion,” but the language does suggest that the term should not be construed as broadly as proposed by American Piledriving."
"Both district courts recognized—and American Pile-driving does not dispute—that the term “eccentric weight portion” is used consistently throughout the claims of the ’964 Patent. Nothing suggests that the term has different meanings in different claims. Where a claim term is used consistently throughout the claims, “the usage of [the] term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.”"
"The specification repeatedly uses the words “thereto” or “therewith” to describe the relationship between the “cylindrical gear portion” and the “eccentric weight portion.”"
"Based on the foregoing, this court agrees with the construction of the term “eccentric weight portion” made by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: “that portion of the counterweight that extends either forward or rearward from the front or back face of the gear portion such that it shifts the center of gravity radially outward from the gear’s rotational axis.”"
--"Integral"（"formed or cast of one piece"）
判決文摘錄：
"Each district court construed “integral” to mean “formed or cast of one piece.”"
即便claim 16並未使用"integral to"用語，而是使用"connected to"，不過法院仍參考了其附屬項claim 19的描述，雖這不是附屬項的用意，但法院這樣使用，也沒有人反對。
"Each court construed the term “connected to” in claim 16 to mean “joined together, united, or linked” and neither party disputes this construction on appeal."
"The prosecution history removes all doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “integral” to mean “formed or cast of one piece.”"
"American Piledriving unambiguously argued that “integral” meant “one-piece” during reexami-nation and cannot attempt to distance itself from the disavowal of broader claim scope."
--"Insert-Receiving Area"
法院的意見摘錄：
"This court agrees with the observation of the Virginia court that the claims and the specification read together inform that the “in-sert-receiving area” has three key components: (1) it is shaped to receive an insert; (2) it is at least partially located in the “eccentric weight portion”; and (3) it may extend into the cylindrical gear."
綜合以上各地方法院、專利權人的爭辯之後，CAFC作出用詞解釋如下：
侵權判斷：
解釋完專利範圍，接著就是侵權判斷，就以上表的各用詞解釋作為專利範圍的解釋/限制，如此限定的專利範圍確實影響了專利範圍可涵蓋的範圍廣度，使得被告在答辯時可以清楚得到被告侵權物對於特定連接關係與元件沒有讀入專利範圍內的結論（針對Model 250, Model 500），法院認定判決侵權不成立。
顯然，在被告Model 250, 500的產品已經成功答辯，或說迴避系爭專利範圍。但是文後對於早期Model 500的侵權判斷時，就沒有那麼幸運了，被認定侵權成立。在此不多說了。
結論：
Model 250, Model 500侵權不成立。
CAFC經解釋專利範圍之後，確認東維吉尼亞地院的裁決（僅由說明書內容解讀專利範圍），而部分同意北卡地方法院的裁決（加入一些並未包括說明書內容的解釋）。
my two cents:
本篇的解釋專利範圍的態度十分值得參考，也為撰寫專利時用詞使用的考量。
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/10-1283.pdf
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/88gtt1re4t4kpu79i6p0qgs5xw2ax1ej）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言