2016年2月2日 星期二

最高法院"應"同意審理Samsung提出的設計爭議 - 設計專利範圍的討論

本篇討論源自FORTUNE.COM的文章:
http://fortune.com/2016/01/18/samsung-apple-amicus/

相關資訊涉及三星於2015年12月14日提出最高法院的移審請願(調閱下級法院重審的請求)(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/01/blog-post_5.html),相同陣營的人(如Google, Microsoft)也助一臂之力,請最高法院要仔細研究這個案例,加上本次由電腦與通訊工業協會(Computer and Communications Industry Association,CCIA)提出一個"amicus brief",請法院能夠重審CAFC的侵權判決,這樣看來最高法院非得接受審理不可,可以期待將來會作出具有歷史意義的決定

其他資訊:
CAFC對Samsung v. Apple判決討論:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/apple-v-samsung.html
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)

http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/01/1871-gorham-v-white-supreme-court-1871.html
(1871年設計侵權判斷標準 - Gorham v. White (Supreme Court 1871))

CCIA提出的「BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER」



其中爭議議題不外乎是認為下級法院錯誤解釋設計專利範圍,以及設計所及於"最終產品"的損害賠償。

"The Federal Circuit misinterpreted “article of manufacture” to mean the “product of manufacture,” i.e., the product sold to consumers. But Congress does not use those terms synonymously. In the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, which is based in part on design patent law, Congress used the terms distinctly. Congress never intended the “article of manufacture” to automatically swallow whatever end-good in which the article incorporating an infringing design is included."

"法庭之友"CCIA要求最高法院接受Samsung所提出的請願(有統計顯示,如三星公司提出的最高法院請願一年有上千件,但最高法院一年僅會受理約100件,因此,需要有外力推一下,讓法官知道案件的嚴重性,顯然,CCIA在本案就盡了它的力量。

相關請求爭點包括(CCIA並非站在Samsung一方,而是希望最高法院可以趁此案作出統一見解):

I. 聯邦巡迴法院對於美國專利法第289條的解釋擴張超過發明人的發明
CCIA認為,CAFC對於美國專利法第289條的解釋讓「設計專利(外觀)的專利權及於整個智慧型手機」,而讓設計專利成為一個比發明專利還厲害的權利,使得權利遠遠超過發明人的發明

「何謂發明人的發明?專利的邊界為何?」這裡討論到「部分設計專利」有「不主張」的範圍,如下圖,以此單一設計來看,其中虛線部分"並非發明人的發明",至少是一支手機的部分而已,但是解釋專利範圍以及計算損害賠償卻是及於整支手機!


my two cents:
我覺得頗為有理,雖然「部分設計」專利的原始用意是「因為排除一些"限制"而有較廣的專利範圍」,但是也算是同時排除了那些「不是自己的發明」的部分,但是權利主張卻可及於整個裝置,這樣想,算是頗不公平的事情。

況且,就整支手機而言,蘋果是很厲害的應用者,大膽嘗試使用最尖端的技術,但蘋果本身並非是關鍵技術開發者,其特色是軟體介面與外觀設計,僅是整支手機「非功能的部分」。因此,計算損害賠償應有適當的「比例原則」。

[法條參考] 35 U.S.C. 289 ADDITIONAL REMEDY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF DESIGN PATENT.

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.
Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.

II. 透過限制製品(article of manufacture)到"物品"就可以迴避專利法第289條規定的損害賠償的合法性?
CCIA認為CAFC錯誤解釋專利法中的「article of manufacture」為限制到賣給消費者的最終物品。這是一個憲法問題,字面上解釋「article of manufacture」僅為「被製造的物品」,這裡的問題是,就手機本身而言,是最終產品,而外觀設計也是最終產品的外觀,屬於「物品」本身。這裡引用「Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA,船艦設計保護法)」解釋相關船艦設計證明「"article of manufacture"不限制在賣給消費者的物品」,VHDPA甚至區隔了"製成的物品"與"侵權的物品",所謂侵權物(infringing article)在這裡指設計專利所保護/界定的物品,這句最重要:"物品(article of manufacture)為侵權的對象,但是製品(product of manufacture)是包括了侵權對象的整個產品"


對此,CCIA認為,CAFC解釋美國專利法第289條與前述對於何謂設計專利的解釋不符,製成物品的設計並不必實現在整個物品上,法條並未限制設計到整個物品。

III. PAE/NPE會使用聯邦巡迴法院對於專利法第289條的解釋增加其槓桿(我翻為談判籌碼)
這個爭議比較單純,也就是當法院認為設計專利及於整個最終產品,而非認定僅是物品的一部分(設計專利並非實現在整個物品上),這樣就給PAE主張超過其應有價值的權利。

amicus brief連結:
http://www.ccianet.org/2016/01/ccia-files-amicus-brief-in-samsung-patent-case-asking-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-review-a-problematic-ruling/
http://cdn.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCIA-amicus-brief-in-Apple-v.-Samsung-cert-petition.pdf

補充:CCIA為一非營利組織,官網:http://www.ccianet.org/

CCIA is an international not-for-profit membership organization dedicated to innovation and enhancing society’s access to information and communications. CCIA promotes open markets, open systems, open networks and full, fair and open competition in the computer, telecommunications and Internet industries.

CCIA宣告:
The correct interpretation of the design patent damages statute is being closely watched by technology companies, as well as by patent assertion entities targeting them. Patent assertion entities are already using the appeals court’s decision to threaten operating companies with the total loss of their profits. This decision encourages design patent law to be applied in a way that was never intended. We think the lower court misinterpreted the law and would encourage the Supreme Court to hear Samsung’s case.

Ron


沒有留言: