案件資訊：
原告：CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
被告：APPLE INC., et al.
系爭專利：US8,055,820
US8,055,820原本是由Nokia獲准的專利，優先權溯及2007年，專利權於2013年轉讓給Acacia，同年又轉給子公司Cellular Communications Equipment LLC，專利曾歷經IPR（HTC與NEC等公司一併提出的IPR201401136、Apple提出的IPR201500578），但皆未啟始（institution）。專利涉及根據通訊裝置預選緩衝區的狀態指定其通訊報表格式的方法。
請求項1涉及的方法包括監測通訊裝置的緩衝區，偵測當中預選緩衝區的狀態，並根據偵測結果指定其中緩衝區狀態的報表格式（reporting format），以此報表格式與網路裝置溝通。
1. A method, comprising:
monitoring a usage of a plurality of buffers;
detecting one of a plurality of pre-selected conditions corresponding to the plurality of buffers;
designating one of a plurality of buffer status reporting formats comprising a long buffer status reporting format and a short buffer status reporting format depending on the pre-selected condition detected; and
communicating a buffer status report to a network device in accordance with the buffer status reporting format designated, wherein the designating designates the long buffer status reporting format when there is sufficient uplink bandwidth to communicate using the long buffer status reporting format.
訴訟審理開始，先解釋專利範圍，法院採用Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)原則，引用內部證據，以發明相關技術領域的人從專利請求項瞭解其意義，模糊的部分則是自專利說明書來解釋專利範圍中的用語（編按，因此說明書對各技術元件的定義最好前後一致，不要產生不一致聯想，因為解釋專利範圍的人是法官）。"In the specification, a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow some claim scope."
"The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”"
接著考量系爭專利審查歷史禁反言，顯然對於本案來說，對解釋請求項中的"uplink bandwidth"頗為重要，最後法院認定這個詞應解釋為「the space available in an uplink grant」。
"The well established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.”"
"The prosecution history must show that the patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during prosecution to obtain claim allowance."
uplink bandwidth解釋：
"Additionally, in some embodiments, the size of an uplink (UL) grant could also
be taken into account (i.e., the size of the uplink transport block). For example, as
soon as more than one RBG [(radio bearer group)] has buffered data and there is
enough room in the UL grant then a report using a long format may be
communicated. If there is not enough UL grant then a short format with the RBG
of highest priority or with the RBG with the largest amount of buffered data may
be communicated. ..."
據以上專利範圍解釋，除了Apple沒有成功無效此專利外，更判斷侵權成立（目前並未獲得所有的訴訟資訊，因此日後可能還有細節報導）。
Phillips v. AWH案例參考：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html
東德州地院解釋專利範圍：
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/6:2014cv00251/151400/254/
http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/6:2014cv00251/151400/254/0.pdf
新聞參考：
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/16/apple-22-1-million-loss-patent-case/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/09/16/patent-holder-acacia-wins-221m-judgement-against-apple
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/16/apple-ordered-to-pay-22-million-acacia/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言