Samsung提出的請願：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/01/blog-post_5.html
"因為從地院到CAFC都沒有依照對Samsung比較有利的Richardson案例下的設計專利侵權原則，判決結果否決Samsung提出專利無效的請願，以及仍認定Samsung侵權成立，特別是對Apple設計專利侵權成立。對此，Samsung向美國最高法院提出移審請願（"on petition for a writ of certiorari"）。"
Gorham v. White (Supreme Court 1871)
以下是判決的簡要說明：
1. The acts of Congress which authorize the grant of a patent for designs contemplate not so much utility as appearance, and the thing invented or produced for which a patent is given is that which gives a peculiar or distinctive appearance to the manufacture or article to which it is applied.
2. It is the appearance to the eye that constitutes mainly, if not entirely, the contribution to the public which the law deems worthy of recompense, and identity of appearance or sameness of effect upon the eye is the main test of substantial identity of design.
3. It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other.
1842專利法：
"That any citizen or citizens &c., who by his, her, or their own industry, genius, efforts, and expense may have invented or produced any new and original design for a manufacture, whether of metal or other material or materials, or any new and original design for the printing of woolen, silk, cotton, or other fabrics, or any new and original design for a bust, statue, orbas relief, or composition in alto or basso relievo, or any new and original impression or ornament, or to be placed on any article of manufacture, the same being formed in marble or other material, or any new and useful pattern, or print, or picture to be either worked into or worked on, or printed, or painted, or cast, or otherwise fixed on any article of manufacture, or any new and original shape or configuration of any article of manufacture not known or used by others before his, her, or their invention or production thereof and prior to the time of his, her, or their application for a patent therefor, and who shall desire to obtain an exclusive property or right therein to make, use, and sell, and vend the same or copies of the same to others, by them to be made, used, and sold, may make application in writing to the Commissioner of Patents expressing such desire, and the commissioner on due proceedings had may grant a patent therefor. The duration of said patent shall be seven years."
原告/專利權人Gorham Co.於1861年取得「餐具」的設計專利，之後，設計中的"cottage pattern"變得流行。被告White在1867, 1868年也取得類似的專利權（一百多年前，恐怕是沒有太多檢索工具，也沒有如現代新穎性、創造性的概念！），所販售的餐具逐漸威脅Gorham Co.的獲利，於是Gorham Co.提出侵權告訴。
最左方為專利圖案，中間與右方為被告侵權物，
（圖案來源：http://uclawreview.org/2015/03/03/design-patents-how-close-is-too-close-vacillating-court-decisions-provide-little-guidance-as-shown-in-apple-v-samsung/）
設計的侵權否與，本案例中就看「是否被告使用的設計實質與原告擁有的一樣？」
"Were the designs used by the defendant substantially the same as that owned by the complainants?"
證據/證詞顯示，多數人認為兩者的餐具十分相似，而且會誤導消費者不曉得購買了侵權物，甚至有30多年的餐具商人認為，除了專家以外（這位證人也要展示一下自己的專業！），都會被欺騙以為買了另一家的產品。
其一專家證詞：
"By the expressions 'substantially' like, I mean such an identity as would deceive me when going as a purchaser to ask for one spoon, if I should be shown another which was slightly different in minute points either of contour or ornamentation. In the present instance, if I had been shown the cottage patterns at one end of a counter, and afterwards had been shown White's pattern of 1867 at the other end of the same counter, I should have taken both sets of exhibits to have been of the same design, and I did, in fact, take them so to be until I laid them side by side and compared them minutely."
但是，意見到了被告，提出兩者的產品與專利多處的差異（說有15處）。
法官意見之一：即便點出這些差異，"一般觀察者"的眼睛仍可能"被欺騙"而無法分辨其差異，在一般觀察者視覺上的效果也不會因為所指出的一些特點而被改變，意思就是，原告與被告產品視覺上實質相等。
"...the one design for the other. It is argued that the merit of a design appeals solely to the eye, and that if the eye of an ordinary observer cannot distinguish between two designs, they must in law be substantially alike. In the present case, it is asserted that the eye of the ordinary observer is and will be deceived when looking at a handle of the plaintiffs' design and a handle of either of the designs of White, because, in addition to the resemblance in contours, the handles have all of them a threaded pattern around the edges, and small knobbed ornamentations at the shoulders, and small knobbed ornamentations near the end, and a pointed projection at the end, and that the general effect on the eye of the ordinary observer is not and will not be modified by the differences which have been pointed out."
於是，根據本次判決，界定了以一般觀察者的判斷原則：一般觀察者購物時，若有欺瞞或是足夠引誘買了以為是另一個的產品，若是，侵權成立。
[ordinary observer]
[i]f in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.
本案結論：
即便仍有疑慮，最高法院認為，雖然設計專利與被告產品之間的差異還是可以探索出來的（專家），但問題仍是是否全部的設計是實質相同（一般觀察者）？在被告White產品與設計專利沒有實質差異且可能讓人混淆的情況下，侵權成立。
"We hold, therefore, that if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other."
後續，於1984年CAFC案例Litton v. Whirlpool認為1871最高法院建立的「ordinary observer」是否有混淆（消費者購買侵權物誤認為購買具有專利的產品）的侵權判斷標準並不足夠，而是應該要確認設計專利相較於先前技術「具有新穎性的部分」是否有混淆來進行侵權比對。
Litton v. Whirlpool案補充（重要）：
"For a design patent to be infringed, however, no matter how similar two items look, "the accused device must appropriate the novelty in the patented device which distinguishes it from the prior art." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge, 140 F.2d 395, 396 (8th Cir. 1944); Horwitt v. Longines Wittnauer Watch Co., 388 F. Supp. 1257, 1263, 185 USPQ 123, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). That is, even though the court compares two items through the eyes of the ordinary observer, it must nevertheless, to find infringement, attribute their similarity to the novelty which distinguishes the patented device from the prior art. (This "point of novelty" approach applies only to a determination of infringement. See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983). This court has avoided the point of novelty approach in other contexts. See, e.g., Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932 at 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (double patenting); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 n. 8, 217 USPQ 401, 403 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (unobviousness).)"
（http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/728/1423/57609/）
my two cents:
就"我有限的視野"來看，即便是設計專利，在美國（尚無討論別的國家）都有很明確的審查進程與歷史脈絡，早自100年前以「是否欺騙了消費者（這還是目前審查基準）來判斷侵權與否」，到30年前「要引入先前技術判斷新穎特徵」，5, 6年前案例討論的「是否排除功能性特徵」，以至於三星提出的排除功能性特徵的上訴議題等，即便都有正反意見，但都感到十分有意思。
所以，現行設計專利侵權判斷是會先討論何謂設計的新穎特徵（比對先前技術），之後再以一般觀察者的眼光判斷被告產品外觀是否涵蓋設計之整體視覺（包括功能性與裝飾性特徵）中的新穎特徵，以此來判斷侵權與否。
我國設計專利侵權鑑定流程簡要：
(1)解析待鑑定物品
(2)排除功能性設計
(3)以普通消費者的水準，判斷解析後待鑑定物品與解釋後設計專利物品是否相同或近似
(4)以普通消費者之水準，判斷解析後待鑑定物品與解釋後申請專利之設計的視覺性設計整體是否相同或近似
(5)以設計所屬技藝領域中具有通常知識者之水準，判斷待鑑定物品是否包含設計的新穎特微
(6)是否適用禁反言，或先前技術阻卻
很多媒體、專利業界報導，如：
http://uclawreview.org/2015/03/03/design-patents-how-close-is-too-close-vacillating-court-decisions-provide-little-guidance-as-shown-in-apple-v-samsung/
最高法院意見：https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/81/511/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言