"CAFC聯席法官認為，根據前述Aukerman案決定，專利法282已經規範能以權利懈怠作為損害賠償的抗辯；但Aukerman案也確認專利法286限制了可恢復的損害賠償在提訴的前6年內；但權利懈怠卻不僅能成為「衡平抗辯（equitable defense，指訴訟中有不公平、不合理情況）」救濟的理由，更可以成為法律上損害賠償的抗辯；權利懈怠抗辯僅能卸下過去的損害賠償，對未來的損害賠償無效，因此無法對抗禁令。"
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.
幾個重要的時間點：2003年，本案緣起請願人SCA（專利權人）告知被告First Quality產品侵權（一種成人紙尿片），First Quality表示自己更早擁有專利權，可以讓SCA專利無效。
2004年，SCA引用First Quality專利對自己的專利提出再審（reexamination）。
2007年，USPTO確認SCA專利權。
2010年（自已知侵權已經超過6年（6年被解釋為追溯期）），SCA對First Quality提出專利侵權訴訟。被告First Quality提出「equitable estoppel and laches（不公平與懈怠）」抗辯，地院同意。SCA提出上訴。
2014年，本案在CAFC審理期間，美國最高法院恰巧作出Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)意見："權利懈怠（laches）"不能對抗損害賠償。不過，這是著作權議題，與專利有根本上的差異，著作權的侵權與專利權的侵權"意識"並不相同。CAFC同意地院意見，認為"權利懈怠（laches）"可以作為對抗專利法286中6年期限的損害賠償。
2015年，CAFC全院聯席同意CAFC決定（"...laches can be asserted to defeat a claim for damages incurred within the 6-year period set out in the Patent Act."）。
本案經SCA上訴後進入最高法院，最高法院不同意之前法院的決定。一些摘錄最高法院的意見：
"In Petrella, we held that laches cannot preclude a claim for damages incurred within the Copyright Act’s 3-year limitations period."
"“Laches,” we explained, “cannot be invoked to bar legal relief ” “in the face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress.”"
"The question in this case is whether Petrella’s reasoning applies to a similar provision of the Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. §286. We hold that it does."
Syllabus:
(a)將"權利懈怠"原則套用在"期限"規定，會賦予法官一個「立法至上」的角色，而使其超越司法的權力。
"Applying laches within a limitations period specified by Congress would give judges a “legislation-overriding” role that exceeds the Judiciary’s power."
(b)著作權法中3年提訴期限不能以時間因素駁回；最高法院法官引用著作權案例Petrella (2014年判決)，適用專利法第286條解釋，專利權人可以對提起訴訟前6年內的侵權行為提起賠償。
"By that same logic, §286 of the PatentAct represents Congress’s judgment that a patentee may recover damages for any infringement committed within six years of the filing of the claim."
(c)最高法院不同意被告First Quality以「權利懈怠」作為不能主張權利（unenforceability）的抗辯理由，也就是權利懈怠不能用來卸除「非及時的訴訟」。
"Even assuming that §282(b)(1) incorporates a laches defense of some dimension, it does not necessarily follow that the defense may be invoked to bar a claim for damages incurred within the period set outin §286."
(d)縱使被告、CAFC法官、地院法官都以1952年專利法來解釋專利法第282條可以「權利懈怠」抵抗損害賠償，但是立法的規則在於：權利懈怠不得援引作為卸除期限內損害賠償之用。
"...laches cannot be invoked to bar a claim for damages incurred within a limitations period specified by Congress."
(e)權利懈怠仍不足成為可以對抗立法中損害賠償的立意，即便之前有些案例產生，都是少數，最高法院堅持立法當初的立意並非讓權利懈怠而解除侵權者的損害賠償。
"even if all three pre-1938 cases at law cited by First Quality squarely held that laches could be applied to a damages claim within the limitations period, that number would be insufficient to overcome the presumption that Congress legislates againstthe background of general common-law principles."
(f)被告主張違反立法精神。
"...this Court cannot overrule Congress’s judgment based on its own policy views."
以上幾點寫在最高法院的簡要說明中，簡單來說，最高法院認為"權利懈怠"不能援引司法救濟。
my two cents:
到底專利法第286條內的「6年」是法律追溯期限，還是專利權人求償期限？根據本次最高法院意見，將著作權侵權的追溯期限套用在專利權「求償期限」，就是求償期限，即便專利權人有權利懈怠的問題。
"we described the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations as “a three-year look-back limitations period.”"
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）
[法條相關案例]
35 U.S.C. 284 Damages（損害賠償）
35 U.S.C. 286 Time Limitation on Damages（損害賠償追溯期）
35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of Validity; Defenses（專利權有效推定與抗辯）
美國最高法院意見：
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-927_6j37.pdf
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言