Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (Fed. Cir. 2017)
案件資訊：
原告/交叉上訴人：ROMAG FASTENERS, INC.
被告/上訴人：FOSSIL, INC., FOSSIL STORES I, INC., MACY'S, INC., MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.
被告：DILLARD'S, INC., NORDSTROM, INC., THE BONTON STORES, INC., ...etc.
系爭專利：US5,722,126
系爭商標：U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,095,367
本案緣起侵權訴訟，而且同時涵蓋了專利與商標侵權議題，原告Romag就拿著自己的專利與商標對被告Fossil與多個經銷商在康乃狄克州地方法院提出侵權告訴，並包括違反不公平交易法的訴訟，陪審團判決認為被告同時成立專利侵權、商標侵權與違反不公平交易法，法官最後判決專利侵權與商標侵權成立。判決甚至同意原告意見，要求被告返還"專利訴訟"的律師費用。
地院判決Romag可以要求被告返還訴訟費用，理由是，被告FOSSIL在訴訟後撤銷專利無效的抗辯，並且其中專利不明卻無效理由頗為輕浮（Frivolous），地院卻也發現被告不侵權的立場並不是那麼輕浮或沒有理由，顯示被告FOSSIL自己放棄了抗辯，因而判其應返還費用。（但是法院註解，這個判斷卻非依據Lanham Act的判斷，因為不滿足欺瞞或非善意的條件，有關的過去報導文後有些連結參考）
系爭專利US5,722,126關於一種磁扣裝置。請求項1界定的磁扣裝置包括有母頭與公頭，母頭有墊圈、磁環、非磁性蓋、管狀部與連接件；公頭有墊圈、第二管狀部、連接件，當管狀部插入洞後，形成磁力，將公母頭接上，而可以互相轉動。
Claim 1. A magnetic snap fastener for releasably connecting a first surface and a second surface comprising:
(a) a female section, having
a first base washer defining a first hole substantially in the center of the first base washer;
a magnetic ring defining a second hole substantially in the center of the magnetic ring;
a non-magnetic cover defining a third hole substantially in the center of the cover and having a continuous peripheral flange, the cover being mounted to the first base washer by the continuous peripheral flange whereby the magnetic ring is held captively between the first base washer and the cover by the first base washer and the cover and whereby the first, second, and third holes are substantially axially aligned;
a first tubular stem with a fourth hole therethrough and substantially in the center thereof, the first tubular stem extending through the first and second holes, whereby the first, second, third, and fourth holes are substantially axially aligned; and
first attachment means affixed to the first base washer by the first tubular stem and adapted for attachment to the first surface;
(b) a male section, having
a second base washer defining a fifth hole substantially in the center of the second base washer;
a second tubular stem with a sixth hole therethrough and substantially in the center thereof, the second tubular stem extending through the fifth hole, whereby the fifth and sixth holes are substantially axially aligned; and
second attachment means affixed to the second base washer by the second tubular stem and adapted for attachment to the second surface;
(c) whereby insertion of the second tubular stem into at least the second and third holes creates a magnetic force which releasably connects the female and male sections and hence the first and second surfaces attached to the first and second attachment means;
(d) wherein the first attachment means comprises a first pair of legs and the second attachment means comprises a second pair of legs;
(e) wherein the first pair of legs is mounted to the first base washer by the first tubular stem and the second pair of legs is mounted to the second base washer by the second tubular stem; and
(f) wherein the first pair of legs is rotatable with respect to the first base washer and second pair of legs is rotatable with respect to the second base washer.
系爭美國商標No. 2,095,367：
被告上訴CAFC。
上述的理由是"雙方都不滿"有關「訴訟/律師費用返還的判決」，被告自然是不滿意需要繳付費用的判決，而原告卻是不滿並非依據Lanham Act所作出返還律師費用的決定（編按，原告不滿的是，地院認為因為本案符合285條例外情事而判被告應返還律師費用，但卻判被告在商標侵權上並無欺瞞或非善意）。
CAFC法院即需要判斷地方法院在此議題上有否濫用其職權作出錯誤的見解？
這裡涉及美國最高法院判例Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)的決定，判斷是否需要返還（被告要給原告）訴訟費用的條件是：侵權行為出於非善意或是蓄意，然而標準卻有些模糊。
特別的是，本案在判斷是否返回律師費用的議題上，同時涉及了專利與商標侵權訴訟，特別的是，兩者對應的法條其實是一致的：
[法條]
35 U.S.C. § 285 ATTORNEY FEES.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
(a) Profits; damages and costs; attorney fees
When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 1125(a) or (d) of this title, or a willful violation under section 1125(c) of this title, shall have been established in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. The court shall assess such profits and damages or cause the same to be assessed under its direction. In assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed. In assessing damages the court may enter judgment, according to the circumstances of the case, for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times such amount. If the court shall find that the amount of the recovery based on profits is either inadequate or excessive the court may in its discretion enter judgment for such sum as the court shall find to be just, according to the circumstances of the case. Such sum in either of the above circumstances shall constitute compensation and not a penalty. The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
雖然以上法條文字不同，但是參考最高法院判例，本次CAFC法院判定，參考Octane判例，商標法與專利法在返還律師費用的標準是一樣的。
"Thus, we conclude that the Second Circuit would hold that, in light of Octane, the Lanham Act should have the same standard for recovering attorney’s fees as the Patent Act."
其中，針對被告是否撤銷「專利無效的不侵權抗辯」？對於被告原本提出的專利無效抗辯，但在訴訟後是否撤銷的問題，CAFC法官認為，不同意地方法院僅根據一些往來的對話判斷出被告有意放棄專利無效抗辯的主張，因此也不能因此根據這個判斷決定返還律師費用的決定。
對於專利侵權判決成立後是否要求被告返還律師費用的議題，CAFC法官認為地院在此議題並未"整體考量"整個狀況，甚至要求也應考量原告在不公平交易/競爭的主張，也就是認為其過程並不滿足35U.S.C.285的分析（欺瞞或非善意）。
CAFC發回地院重審有關返還律師費用的決定。
補充：
根據返還律師費用規定的35U.S.C.285，在「特定情況下」，可以要求返還訴訟律師費用，此案例雖由原告興訟，卻是在此特定情況下，由於被告有「非善意」的情況下，被要求返還專利訴訟的律師費用，不包括商標訴訟這塊。其中參考案例為Octane Fitness，同時適用專利與商標的訴訟。
部落格過去報導：
- 地方法院有決定律師費誰付的裁量權 - Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html）
- 訴訟
部落格過去有關Lanham Act（商標法）的報導：
- 以商業使用確保商標的擁有權 - Christian Faith Fellowship v. Adidas AG (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/11/christian-faith-fellowship-v-adidas-ag.html）
- 維持軟件服務商標的條件 - IN RE: JOBDIVA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/12/in-re-jobdiva-inc-fed-cir-2016.html）
my two cents:
大概只有在這個少數會同時有專利與商標訴訟的案例中才會得到在專利與商標訴訟中返還律師費用的一致標準的決定。
訴訟中，有些有利自己的議題千萬不要隨意放棄（如本案中，被告中途就不繼續專利無效的不侵權抗辯），這樣法官心證會認為你"心虛"，還導致要賠償原告律師費用，至少地院可能會這樣想：
"However, the district court concluded that Fossil declined to abandon these defenses until after the trial, and considered this to be a key factor for awarding fees to Romag. Specifically, the district court held that Fossil’s “failure to formally withdraw its [anticipation and obviousness] invalidity defenses until after the close of evidence weigh in favor of an award of fees in this case.”"
法庭上律師與法官的對話會一一記錄，這都可能成為下一級法院的呈堂公証，也會變成對照攻擊的弱點，本案例中看到幾頁的法官與律師的對話，形成判斷被告是否撤回一些議題答辯的證據（雖然本案中CAFC否決了地院的意見，但是，難保在其他案例中不是這樣，而且還要上訴才有這個答案）。
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1115.Opinion.8-7-2017.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/u2q55g4c2dxxtjwt8pjndav3u6u33xhi）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/08/linking-patent.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言