原告/專利權人/上訴人：EDWIN LYDA
被告/被上訴人：CBS CORPORATION, CBS INTERACTIVE, INC.
系爭專利：US7,434,243（claims 8, 9）、US7,730,506（claims 1, 7）
本案例緣起，原告原於紐約南部地方法院提出對CBS提出侵權告訴，認為CBS子公司製作的電視節目侵害原告有關即時互動節目的專利。
原告CBS Corp.為美國知名無線電視台，特別是一個包括以網路傳播經營電視台的公司，經營一間子公司"CBS Interactive, Inc."，顯然就是推出有互動功能的電視節目，如一個訴訟中提到的"Big Brother"真人實境秀，讓觀賞者可以使用行動裝置投票表示以影響節目進行。
兩件系爭專利皆溯及相同的美國臨時申請案，關於一種在影音節目中使用行動裝置即時通訊的遠端回應系統（remote response system），這是應用在行動裝置讓使用者可以與進行中的節目進行"即時"通訊技術，中央系統在節目進行中可以透過節目識別碼辨識節目，讓使用者回應的訊息可以正確傳遞到節目端，通訊過程宣稱不用使用到個人電腦。
'506的Claim 1如下，界定一種接收與處理對節目的回應訊息的方法，系統提供節目端識別碼（identifier code），在無需個人電腦的情況下讓使用者可以直接使用輸入裝置傳訊到進行中的節目上，訊息中即內含識別碼，訊息係由一中央系統處理，根據識別碼轉送訊息。
1. A method for receiving and processing responses to a program comprising:
providing a program identifier code for the program;
providing means for identifying an audience member,
providing a user input device not requiring a personal computer, the device configured to allow the audience member to send response data directly from the user input device over a standard communication system in response to the program received apart from the device, the device operating without receiving program data;
having the audience member input the program identifier code into the user input device;
having the audience member input responses to the program received apart from the device into the user input device;
transmitting response data comprising the program identifier code, the means for identifying an audience member, and the responses over the standard communication system;
collecting the response data at a central location;
correlating the program identifier code to the responses;
processing the response data.
'243的Claim 9如下，涉及處理回應訊息的系統，與前述範圍比較，特點在回應訊息處理的節目係選自無線電、電視廣播、網際網路、衛星通訊、錄製好的影音內容，或現場節目。
9. A system for receiving and processing responses to a program selected from the group consisting of a radio broadcast, a television broadcast, an internet broadcast, a satellite communication, an audio tape, a video tape, and a live performance, the system comprising:
providing a program identifier code for the program being presented;
providing a user input device other than a personal computer, the device generating without receiving signals eliciting a response by a user;
having an audience member input the program identifier code into the user input device:
having the audience member input responses into the user input device;
transmitting the program identifier code and the responses associated with a user identifier over a standard communication system, wherein the standard communication system utilizes telephone lines and equipment and the responses retransmitted by having the user input device call a pre-assigned telephone number associated with the input responses;
collecting, correlating, and processing the program identifier and the responses;
routing the responses to a program presenter.
地方法院階段：在地院爭議在如何證明被告侵權者有侵權的行為，是否共同侵權，又涉及一種僅適用直接侵權表示的Form 18的錯誤使用，以及被告母子公司關係（涉及是直接侵權或共同侵權），結果法官認為原告並未證明被告產品（如Big Brother）與系爭專利專利範圍的關聯，認為原告雖修改了原訴狀，錯誤提出Form 18，加上證據過於模糊，因此駁回告訴。
新知：Form 18是，範本如下（http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-practice/form18.pdf）
CAFC階段：
"For claims of direct patent infringement, this court has determined that the pleading requirements of Form18 suffice to survive a motion to dismiss."
Form 18 has the following minimal requirements:
(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent “by making, selling, and using [the device] embodying the patent”; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an injunction and damages.
使用Form 18的基本內容有：管轄權指定、原告專利權陳述、被告侵權陳述、被告已被通知，以及禁制令與損害賠償請求。
這跟一句老話有關："舉證之所在，敗訴之所在"
當原告主張被告產品直接侵權，應提出證據，包括專利範圍逐項、逐元件、逐步驟侵權的事實比對。
“Direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity.”
CAFC在這裡提出直接侵權與共同侵權舉證的不同（值得參考）：
因此，對於適用Form 18的直接侵權證據，CAFC同意地院的決定，也就是認為如果是共同侵權，也不是使用Form 18，對於共同侵權，原告並未滿足舉證的義務，沒有提出被告侵權與系爭專利範圍中各步驟的比對，與各方貢獻。
"A claim of joint infringement thus requires pleading facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that all steps of the claimed method are performed and either (1) one party exercises the requisite “direction or control” over the others’ performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party."
CAFC確認地院判決。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1923.Opinion.9-28-2016.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/yra0c6kmuqlirr5qe6p8o80r8fh07xub）
參考資料：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/10/infringement-complaint-allegations.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言