ARS Technica網站特別提到這個訴訟，東德州法官Rodney Gilstrap用律師費打擊Patent Troll，這是對Patent Troll不小的警示。
案件資訊：
原告/專利權人：eDekka LLC
被告：3BALLS.COM, INC., E REVOLUTION VENTURES, INC., et al.
系爭專利：U.S. Patent No.
6,266,674 (“the ’674 Patent”)
審理法官：Rodney Gilstrap（特別介紹）
緣起：eDekka LLC一個NPE，2014年對近130對象提出侵權告訴，使用的就是本次系爭專利，被告多半是透過網路販售物品的零售商，接著在2015年又補上89個被告。結果，這200多個被告提出請願（motion），主張系爭專利無效，原因是不符35U.S.C. 101規定，2015年9月，法院在短時間內就做出專利無效的判決。還沒完，接著，被告又提出本案符合美國專利法35U.S.C. 285條款中「特殊情況（"exceptional case"）」，法院應判決原告繳付各被告所支付的律師費用，結果因為兩個理由，地方法院判決原告應繳付被告的律師費用，理由包括：本案eDekka LLC原告有客觀的不合理性，以及原告以不合理理由提出訴訟。
"Defendants assert that this case should be found “exceptional” under § 285 for two
reasons: (1) eDekka’s case was objectively unreasonable; and (2) eDekka litigated in an
unreasonable manner. (Mot. at 7, 13.) The Court agrees."
案件與法條參考：
35 U.S.C. 285 ATTORNEY FEES.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
這部分引用某次最高法院的判決地方法院有裁決律師費用的權利，可參考過去報導：
“地方法院有決定律師費誰付的裁量權 - Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)”
Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)
根據美國最高法院幾天前的判決（Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)），重申地院被賦予更廣的裁量權可以判給合理的律師費用給勝訴的一方。
系爭專利涉及利用使用者定義的標籤（labels）隨機存取資料的技術，相關請求範圍如下，為儲存資訊的方法，包括根據使用者輸入取得與儲存資訊，指定資訊的某一部分為標籤，以及決定其資料結構與位置，之後將標籤存入，連結標籤與資料。
1. Method for storing information provided by a user which comprises:
in response to user input, receiving and storing information;
in response to user input, designating the information as data while the
information is being received;
in response to user input, designating at least a portion of the information
as a label while the information is being received;
in response to user input, traversing a data structure and providing an
indication of a location in the data structure;
in response to user input, storing the label at the location in the data
structure; and
associating the label with the data.
in response to user input, receiving and storing information;
in response to user input, designating the information as data while the
information is being received;
in response to user input, designating at least a portion of the information
as a label while the information is being received;
in response to user input, traversing a data structure and providing an
indication of a location in the data structure;
in response to user input, storing the label at the location in the data
structure; and
associating the label with the data.
3. Method for storing information provided by a user which comprises:
in response to user input, receiving and storing information;
in response to user input, designating the information as data while the
information is being received;
in response to user input, conveying the stored information to the user and
designating at least a portion of the stored information as a label while the stored information is being conveyed;
in response to user input, traversing a data structure and providing an indication of a location in the data structure;
in response to user input, storing the label at the location in the data structure; and
associating the label with the data.
in response to user input, receiving and storing information;
in response to user input, designating the information as data while the
information is being received;
in response to user input, conveying the stored information to the user and
designating at least a portion of the stored information as a label while the stored information is being conveyed;
in response to user input, traversing a data structure and providing an indication of a location in the data structure;
in response to user input, storing the label at the location in the data structure; and
associating the label with the data.
有關101議題：
這樣的資料結構技術在ALICE判例之後應該就是無法主張的無效專利（沒有連結任何硬體、電腦或是特殊的裝置），因此被認定無效。地方法院並沒有很努力去解釋專利範圍，就很直接地認定這是一個不能專利的標的，這個決定也連動專利侵權不成立。
不合理動機/濫用司法：
原告雖極力辯護，但是整個來看都是在反覆斟酌一個明顯沒有意義、本質很弱的專利，這使得法院質疑是否原告在沒有合理與通盤的"訴前調查"，包括101專利性的考量，又提出大量的訴訟案，因此認為原告有符合285條款中特殊情況，例如輕浮、不合理動機與目的等，於是作出原告繳付律師費的裁決。
"the Court identifies a clear need to advance considerations of deterrence. See
Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1756 n.6 (“[I]n determining whether to award fees under a similar
provision in the Copyright Act, district courts could consider a ‘nonexclusive’ list of ‘factors,’
including ‘frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal
components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of
compensation and deterrence.’” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, eDekka’s unreasonable § 101
positions support an “exceptional” case finding."
法院自然也是看到原告NPE的訴訟動機就是要脅和解，有幾件早期和解的案子，其金額比訴訟費用少很多，其中原告聯繫一些被告僅以3000美元和解，時間也就在法院作出專利無效的判決前，根據這些跡象，法院使用最高法院透過判例給地院的裁量權，判決原告應繳付被告律師費，被告應在此判決後14天內提出費用依據。
"“[A] pattern of litigation abuses
characterized by the repeated filing of patent infringement actions for the sole purpose of forcing
settlements, with no intention of testing the merits of one’s claims, is relevant to a district court’s
exceptional case determination under § 285.”"
因此本案連專利範圍都沒解釋，就用101, 285等條款駁回訴訟，並判定繳付被告律師費（"grant motion for attorneys' fees"）。
my two cents:
本篇算是一點點回應前篇有關NPE/Patent Troll利用專利"不合理地"興訟而要脅被告妥協（如果被告不想找律師進行訴訟，就可能和解），比如本案系爭專利雖可以用在購物車的應用，但是技術上僅是一般資料處理，有關資料結構，我覺得是個很怪的專利（獲准不見得是有意義的技術），這也被地方法院用來當作理由證明本訴訟的不合理性。
雖法律確實給法官有裁決，以及判斷是否特殊情況的權力，但是用不用就是法官的決定，我想這位法官做的決定是大快人心，當然也有其邏輯，就是NPE的行為有特殊明顯的動機，還有個值得注意的地方是，法官會判斷專利的強度與其興訟的比例關係，或說司馬昭之心眾人皆知，法官也知道（不是恐龍）。
地方法院判決文：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言