前篇：設計專利侵權賠償不會僅針對最終產品來算 - Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus Innovative（https://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/10/columbia-sportswear-v-seirus-innovative.html）
本篇侵權訴訟判決中，系爭專利有：US8,424,119、US8,453,270，以及USD657,093，標準地，侵權討論之前，會先解釋專利範圍，一般原則參考了案例「Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)」（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html），以及最廣且合理的解釋（Broadest and Reasonable Interpretation，BRI，http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/06/bri-mpep-2111.html）。
本篇判決中，解釋專利範圍前，法官"整理"了許多案例提供的解釋專利範圍的指示，以下摘錄一些重點：
"Patent claims must precisely define the relevant invention to put both the public and competitors on notice of the claimed invention."
"During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specificationas it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”" ...
“The words of the a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
"Beyond the plain language of the claims, the patent specification is always highly relevant and often dispositive to the proper construction."
"The inventor can use the specification to describe the invention in a number of ways, such as describing different “embodiments” of the invention and by assigning particular meanings to specific claim language."
"The prosecution history becomes useful where it “provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”"
The inventor's Lexicography:
"The inventor can also clarify that he or she intends the claim language to carry a specific meaning different from its ordinary one."
針對系爭專利的用語解釋專利範圍，多是關於其技術的描述，然而，仍有些「通用」的用語解釋，值得來理解。
「adapted to」或「adapted for」：
可以解釋為"made to"、"designed to"、"configured to"，也可以是"capable of"、"suitable for"，在本案例中，解釋為"suited by design to"或"suited by design for"。
法官意見：
“adapted to” or “adapted for” means “suited by design to” or “suited by design for”;
“adapted for use with body gear” means “suited by design for use with body gear”;
“adapted to allow, impede, and/or restrict passage” means “suited by design to allow, impede, and/or restrict passage.”
「discontinuous array」：
“discontinuous array” means “an arrangement of multiple, [discrete heat directing elements], whereby some of the base fabric is exposed between adjacent elements.”
設計專利範圍怎麼解釋：
專利權人這樣講：『設計用來反射熱的材料上有重複的鄰近對比色波浪圖案，而並不涉及圖案上的商標名稱或標誌，也不涉及圖案的轉向，以及顏色選擇。』
"A repeating pattern of adjacent wavy lines of contrasting colors on a material designed to reflect heat, without regard to (i) any trade names or logos in the pattern, (ii) orientation of the pattern, and (iii) the choices of the colors used."
侵權被告的解釋：『如圖所示的不中斷的波浪形狀單元的裝飾圖案。』
"The ornamental aspects of an uninterrupted pattern of wave shaped elements as shown and described."
法院拒絕這樣詳細口語的解釋設計專利範圍，搬出了最高法院在Egyptian Goddess案例中的意見，其中認為：設計若沒有圖式，任何描述都無法理解，設計很難用文字描述，就不要用詳細言詞去解釋設計專利範圍。
"“As the Supreme Court has recognized, a design is better represented by an illustration ‘than it could be by any description and a description would probably not be intelligible without the illustration.’ ”"
解釋設計專利範圍，可查詢Google或本部落格的設計專利案例：
- 成為經典的案例，設計專利解釋時是否要排除「功能性特徵」？設計專利侵權討論 - Apple v. Samsung案例（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/apple-v-samsung.html）
- 設計應該是同時包括裝飾性元件與功能性元件：設計專利範圍解釋 - Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/05/sport-dimension-inc-v-coleman-co-inc.html）
- 設計專利侵權判斷應排除功能性元件 - 案例Richardson v. Stanley討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/richardson-v-stanley.html）
my two cents:
過去有許多專利用語的案例報導，可以用「專利用語」搜尋本部落格。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言