原告/上訴人/專利權人：INDACON, INC.,
被告/被上訴人：FACEBOOK, INC.
系爭專利：US 6,834,276
緣起，本案經Indacon提出侵權訴訟，認為被告Facebook社群網路的內容連結架構"linking..."侵害Claims 1-4, 8-11，地方法院在專利範圍解釋後，認為侵權不成立，原告於是上訴CAFC，其中主要爭議在系爭請求項中幾個用語的解釋，如"alias", "custom link", "custom linking relationship", "link term"等。
系爭專利關於一種資料庫系統與資料採集與閱覽方法，讓使用者選擇其中資料，提供索引搜尋資料，根據請求項1界定的系統範圍，具有資料庫選擇模組（選擇檔案）、連結模組（提供自訂連結）、資料庫索引產生器（產生可搜尋索引）與搜尋模組（執行搜尋條件）。
1. A data acquisition and perusal system, comprising:
a database selection module that enables selection of a plurality of files for inclusion into at least one selectable database;
a link module that enables custom links to be defined between selected terms of selected files of the at least one database;
wherein the link module enables association of any link term with any of the plurality of files in the at least one selectable database; and
wherein the link module enables at least one alias term to be defined for the any link term to enable a link to be established between the at least one alias term and the any of the plurality of files;
a database index generator module that enables generation of a searchable index of the data contained in the at least one selectable database, including the custom links, the generator module enabling only valid custom links to be added to the searchable index; and
a search module that enables a search of the searchable index to be performed according to a search criterions.
請求項8方法中，根據搜尋條件找到檔案、選擇檔案，其中包括資料庫中相關資訊，定義自訂連結的關係，經確認後，產生可搜尋索引。
8. A data acquisition and perusal method for finding, storing and retrieving useful information, comprising the steps of:
locating a plurality of accessible files according to a selected search criteria;
selecting a plurality of the located files containing relevant information for automatic inclusion into at least one selectable database;
defining custom linking relationships between selected terms and designated files of the selected database;
wherein said link definition step includes defining at least one alias term for at least one of the selected terms to establish linking relationships between the at least one alias term and one of the designated files;
verifying the validity of the custom linking relationships;
generating a searchable index of the data contained in the selected database including the custom linking relationships so that the searchable index includes only valid custom linking relationships; and
searching the searchable index according to a selected search criterion to locate words and phrases in the data and accurately highlighting the located terms and phrases.
爭議從「claim construction」開始，解釋請求項中用語時，會參考內部證據（說明書、審查歷史）與外部證據，說明書是最重要的依據之一。用語解釋：
"alias"
"alias"中文為"別名"，在此案中主要是讓被搜尋的檔案有個方便搜尋的"別名"，因為每種物品除了正式名稱外，還會有慣用名稱，或是俗稱等，如果要建立較好的搜尋資料庫，需要設計"別名"。如系爭專利中的範例：
"For example, the user may define the terms “grape”, “tomato”, “raspberry”, etc., as aliases of a link term “vine fruit”. Each alias is treated in a similar manner as its corresponding link term."
不過，爭議在"alias"與"alias term"是否可以涵蓋"圖形"連結？根據說明書的描述與審查歷史證據，"alias"與"alias term"是個文字用語，僅涵蓋文字，是個搜尋用語，本身並不是「超連結（hyperlink）」，地院如此裁決，CAFC法院同意。
"custom link"、"custom linking relationship"、"link term"
"custom link"是自訂連結的意思，讓使用者連結到選擇的檔案，"custom linking relationship"表示檔案與顯示的連結的關係，"link term"為使用者選擇要顯示為連結的用語。
以上用語為系爭專利本身自定義的用語，如Facebook爭辯，這些用語並沒有一般意思，因此只能由說明書來解釋，無法提供更廣的解釋。
如其中"link term"，根據說明書內容，連結模組致使任一link term與任一檔案的關聯，並以超連結呈現，表明所有的連結都是如此，這個限制也見於審查歷史中。再由請求項中資料庫索引產生器插入自訂連結，建立連結路徑。
"The link module enables association of any selected link term with any of the plurality of files in the selectable database."
對以上「全部皆為自訂文字超連結」等較為限縮的專利請求項解釋，原告Indacon提出「請求項差異化原則（doctrine of claim differentiation）」反駁地院意見，理由是「
2. A data acquisition and perusal system, comprising:
a database selection module that enables selection of a plurality of files for inclusion into at least one selectable database;
a link module that enables custom links to be defined between selected terms of selected files of the at least one database;
wherein the link module enables designation of a pattern that corresponds to one or more text strings, and wherein the link module is operable to link instances of the one or more text strings in the selected files with other of said selected files having identification data that matches the text strings;
a database index generator module that enables generation of a searchable index of the data contained in the at least one selectable database, including the custom links, the generator module enabling only valid custom links to be added to the searchable index; and
a search module that enables a search of the searchable index to be performed according to a search criterion.
14. A method of linking, indexing, and searching a plurality of selected source files, the method comprising:
enabling users to create custom links between two or more of the plurality of selected source files;
enabling designation of a link term and designation of one of the plurality of selected source files to be linked to the designated link term;
automatically generating links between all instances of the link term within the plurality of selected source files and the designated file;
enabling identification of a plurality of alias terms to be associated with the designated link term; automatically generating links between all instances of the alias terms in the plurality of selected source files and the designated file;
generating a searchable index of the plurality of selected source files;
incorporating any user-created custom links into the index; and
searching the searchable index according to a search criterion to locate words and phrases in the plurality of selected source files.
不過，法院點出，這些專利範圍皆為獨立請求項，沒有如附屬項差異化原則的效果，更重要的是，雖有請求項差異化原則，仍不能藉此超過專利說明書內容的解釋範圍，以及超越審查歷史的證據。
"we have declined to apply the doctrine of claim differentiation where, as here, the claims are not otherwise identical in scope."
"although claim differentiation is a useful analytic tool, it cannot enlarge the meaning of a claim beyond that which is supported by the patent documents, or relieve any claim of limitations imposed by the prosecution history."
結論：CAFC同意地院專利範圍解釋，並判決侵權不成立。
有關請求項差異化原則：
"「專利附屬項」的功能之一至少表示「與獨立請求項」有不同範圍，也就是直接提昇了獨立請求項的解釋範圍，至少表示發明人不希望獨立範圍並非限制到附屬項的範圍，這也是表明發明人的發明意圖。"
請求項差異化原則（Doctrine of Claim Differentiation）相關報導：
- PTAB對首件IPR的最終決定（about Claims）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/02/ptabiprabout-claims.html）
- 112(d)、附屬項與請求項差異化原則（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/10/112d.html）
- 合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html）
my two cents:
我認為，本案法官看來有些過份限縮專利範圍解釋，不過整個客觀證據仍支持這個判決。撰寫專利範圍時，「附屬項」確有其重要性，因為附屬項的角色可以表示發明人對於被依附項（如獨立請求項）的範圍有更廣的意圖，間接讓專利範圍解釋可以廣一些。
本案系爭專利敗筆之一就是專利範圍都以獨立項來表示。
資料參考：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/claim-limits-differences.html
CAFC判決：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1129.Opinion.6-2-2016.1.PDF
判決備份：https://app.box.com/s/d0j8icsripz357l8amp7f4snd5z0zbac
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言