2016年1月5日 星期二

三星在美國最高法院提出設計專利的移審請願

根據過去設計專利的爭議中學到一些事:(1)從Richardson案例知道設計專利侵權判斷應以「視覺性裝飾」作為判斷基礎,排除「功能性的設計」;(2)但是,從Apple v. Samsung案例中得出,地院到CAFC不見得接受Richardson案例作出的設計專利侵權判斷結果,設計專利侵權判斷時,從被告侵權產品的整體是否視覺上實質侵害設計專利一致來判斷,不需要刻意排除功能性設計,也就是侵權判斷以前,沒有需要釐清(factor out)何謂功能性設計,何謂視覺性/裝飾性設計。

設計專利侵權判斷應排除功能性元件 - 案例Richardson v. Stanley討論(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/richardson-v-stanley.html

設計專利侵權討論 - Apple v. Samsung案例
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/apple-v-samsung.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,請求調閱下級文件再審理("on petition for a writ of certiorari")。(updated on Jan. 19. 2016)

在此請願中,Samsung主張「設計專利就是看其"裝飾性("ornamental")"」,要求法院解釋專利範圍時應該要排除其中「設計不保護的部分("unprotected features")」。Samsung認為,設計專利中裝飾性的設計不包括功能性的特徵("functional features"),功能性的特徵是發明專利(utility patent)的範疇。

即便Apple的設計專利處於專利無效的爭議中,但仍值得一提:
D618,677

D593,087


D604,305


Samsung對美國最高法院提出的「PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI」提出以下討論議題:

Design patents are limited to “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. 171. A design-patent holder may elect infringer’s profits as a remedy under 35 U.S.C. 289, which provides that one who “applies the patented design … to any article of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, … but [the owner] shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.”
The Federal Circuit held that a district court need not exclude unprotected conceptual or functional features from a design patent’s protected ornamental scope. The court also held that a design-patent holder is entitled to an infringer’s entire profits from sales of any product found to contain a patented design, without any regard to the design’s contribution to that product’s value or sales. The combined effect of these two holdings is to reward design patents far beyond the value of any inventive contribution. The questions presented are:
1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope?
2. Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?
1. 當設計專利包括非保護的非裝飾性特徵,是否地方法院應限制設計專利在其保護的裝飾性範疇?
2. 當設計專利僅適用在產品的某元件上,是否侵權者的罰鍰應限制在與該元件有貢獻的部分?

在此請願書中交待整個爭議的來龍去脈,包括先前各級法院的意見,並主張Samsung在iphone上市之前已經有類似外觀研發,

幾點爭議如下,我覺得這些爭議頗有意義!



Samsung移審請願:
http://patentlyo.com/media/2015/12/SamsungPetition.pdf
https://app.box.com/s/qdz149ejlbwy0uh9k6btu1os3gx86169(備份)

參考Patently-O資訊:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/12/electronics-calculationnew-petition.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/01/samsung-patent-construction.html

先前報導:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/d618677.html(蘋果D618677再審無效決定)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/05/blog-post_9.html(蘋果設計專利案例筆記)

Ron

沒有留言: