但根據英國最高法院於2013年的新的判決Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats UK Limited [2013]，以上規則已經被推翻，當專利權已經被撤銷（且確認不能回復），為了公正性以及公眾利益，侵權被告可以主張專利權人因為專利權已經被撤銷而不能要求損害賠償，也就是，"過去的"專利權人已經不能追溯過去專利權仍有效的損害賠償。
案例資訊：
專利權人/原告：Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd ("Virgin"，維珍航空)
侵權被告：Zodiac Seats UK Ltd ("Zodiac")
系爭專利：EP (UK) 1 495 908 ("the 908 patent"), EP (UK) 2 272 711 ("the 711 patent") and EP (UK) 2 289 734 ("the 734 patent") (updated on Oct. 27, 2016)
系爭專利涉及「飛機的座椅系統」，以及可以變更為躺椅的飛機座椅。
(updated on Oct. 27, 2016)
EP (UK) 1 495 908
Claim 1: A passenger seating system for an aircraft, comprising a plurality of seat units (40), each seat unit defining a notional longitudinal seat axis (C- C) and comprising a supporting structure (42) adapted for attaching the seat unit to a floor of an aircraft (12)and means forming or being configurable for forming a seat comprising a seat- pan (71) and a back- rest(72), said seat units being arranged to form a column(29) defining a notional longitudinal column axis (B-B), in which column said seat- units are arranged side- by- side in longitudinally offset relation at an acute angle to the notional column axis (B- B), there-by defining a space to the rear of each seat, each seat unit further comprising means forming or being configurable for forming a substantially flat bed(47,48,67,74,76), so that when the seat unit is formed into a bed a major proportion of the bed is disposed forwardly of the position that was occupied by the seat, and characterised in that the flat- bed extends rearwardly into said space (36) behind the seat.
EP (UK) 2 272 711
Claim 1: A seat unit (40) for a seating system for an aircraft, the seat unit defining only one notional longitudinal seat axis (C-C) and comprising a supporting structure (42) adapted for attaching the seat unit to a floor of a vehicle and means forming or being configurable for forming a seat comprising a seat-pan (71) and a back-rest (72), the seat unit being adapted to be arranged side-by-side with other like units to form a column (29) defining a notional longitudinal column axis (B-B), in which column said seat-units are in longitudinally offset relation at an acute angle to the notional longitudinal column axis (B-B), thereby defining a space (36) to the rear of the seat when the unit is configured as a seat, the seat unit further comprising means forming or being configurable for forming a substantially flat bed, a major proportion of which bed is disposed forwardly of the position of the seat, said seat forming means and said bed forming means comprising one or more movable passenger-bearing elements (71, 72) which are selectively configurable to form, in a seat mode, at least part of the seat for a passenger or, in a bed mode, at least part of said flat bed, and wherein the flat bed in the bed mode is disposed at substantially the same level as the seat-pan (71) in the seat mode, characterised in that the bed extends rearwardly into said space (36) and a generally triangular first passenger-supporting element (47) is disposed in said rearward space substantially coplanarly with said one or more movable elements (71, 72) when said movable elements are configured in the bed mode and is adapted to form part of said flat bed.
緣起：
歐洲上訴法院於2009年作出專利有效且侵權成立的判決，2010年更執行禁制令與損害賠償。
被告於2008年就提出異議程序，提出"中央型/統一型"專利異議程序（centralised opposition procedure），也就是專利一旦被撤銷，或是修改，全部EPC成員國的國家專利都一致被撤銷或修改，反之，如果僅是提出國家區域的異議，其結果僅適用該國專利。異議程序到訴願委員會在歐洲上訴法院判決之後作出決定，專利權已經被判無效。
根據EPC Article 68規定，專利一旦撤銷，自始不存在。
案件進入歐洲最高法院，原告主張（依照前例）被告不能挑戰先前（專利有效的侵權訴訟）主張賠償與侵權不成立的決定。
但是，歐洲最高法院否決原告的主張，理由是這不是一個新啟的議題，不能禁止被告提出根據已經改變的事實的主張。
"The Supreme Court found that there was no cause of action estoppel because Zodiac was not re-opening the question of validity of the patent (as decided by the Court of Appeal), but instead was relying on the "mere fact of amendment, not on the reasons why it happened.""
"On the present facts, Zodiac was raising the new fact of revocation (irrespective of the ground for that revocation) and not re-opening the issue of validity."
也就是，當整個議題是個新啟的議題（非一連貫），則可能對過往的意見為禁反言（這至少保護一個完整的系統與各級法院的獨立性，而不會隨意被其他後進案例影響）。
其實平行案件之間是否互相影響一直是的問題，如本次議題討論專利被撤銷，是否會影響其他訴訟所作出的決定？應該不會，但是本案例至少表示是相同原告與被告一連貫的程序走下來，最高法院認為這非新啟的程序，而沒有禁反言適用（可以否決過去侵權成立的賠償）。
涉及法條：
EPC Art. 68 Effect of revocation or limitation of the European patent
The European patent application and the resulting European patent shall be deemed not to have had, from the outset, the effects specified in Articles 64 and 67, to the extent that the patent has been revoked or limited in opposition, limitation or revocation proceedings.
英國最高法院判決文：
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0013-judgment.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1713.html
資料參考：
https://cms.law/en/INT/Publication/Supreme-Court-s-landmark-decision-removes-right-to-damages-where-patent-later-revoked
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fd57280c-ed4f-4ab4-a325-2aefabe13224
my two cents:
[歐洲]
這個意見真是見仁見智，因為專利取得是國家賦予的權利，專利權人會因此使用這個權利（雖然這是排他權）而開始研發與付出投資，這時的侵權自然回影響專利權人的利益，如果法律至少可以保障這段時間的權利，還算說得過去（對政府的信賴）；但這時的投入卻可能有個變數 - 專利權之後被撤銷，一旦專利權被撤銷，這些研發與投資就可能因為「被仿冒」而不保，錢也要不回來。反之，專利權一旦確認無效（自始不存在），也就沒有所謂的「被仿冒」，也不能因此主張"過去的"侵權賠償，這也頗有道理。
這雖是個難解的題目，但是專利被撤銷真的是個可怕的變數，因此，常勸發明人對於重要的發明不要僅以提出一件專利申請案或僅取得一件專利，更可考慮多樣佈局（發明、新型、設計），降低以上變數產生的風險。
[美國]
另一個議題是，如果專利是「過期」的，就是過去有效，專利也沒被撤銷，如何主張過去的權利？
這裡提到的是，專利權人可以在專利過期日後六年內提出侵權賠償訴訟，也對照了美國專利法第286條規定僅能追溯提訴前六年內的侵權行為賠償，但仍可主張之後禁令。舉例來說，若專利已經過期四年，依照規定僅能在過期日後六年內追溯賠償，這時僅能追溯過期前兩年專利有效期限內的侵權行為賠償。
What if the patent is expired? (quotation from USPTO)
Even if a patent is expired, the patent owner has six years from the expiration date to file a lawsuit in order to collect monetary damages for past infringement before the expiration date. More information about patent term, and an explanation of how to estimate whether a patent has expired, is available on the Patent Term Calculator webpage. Also, note that the claims of a patent can be invalidated by federal courts and/or the USPTO prior to their expiration, but not afterwards.
對照35 U.S.C. 286，這裡提到的是請求侵權陪長的時間限制，就僅能針對提出訴訟前的六年內侵權行為主張侵權賠償。35 U.S.C. 286 TIME LIMITATION ON DAMAGES.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
In the case of claims against the United States Government for use of a patented invention, the period before bringing suit, up to six years, between the date of receipt of a written claim for compensation by the department or agency of the Government having authority to settle such claim, and the date of mailing by the Government of a notice to the claimant that his claim has been denied shall not be counted as a part of the period referred to in the preceding paragraph.
專利期限計算器：
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator
資料參考：
-可能因為"懈怠"而無法主張專利權 - SCA Hygiene v. First Quality Baby (en banc Fed. Cir. 2015)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/07/sca-hygiene-v-first-quality-baby-en.html）
-專利權追溯期筆記（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/03/blog-post_24.html）
過期專利如何主張權利，資料參考（本部落格將另章報導）：
http://www.finnegan.com/zh-CHT/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=3113e326-df7d-4c8f-8292-d9d6d4cbc9c2
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言