「介入權」，簡單來說，就是被政府介入/干擾後產生的權利。這是被告可以主張的權利（涉及其先使用權）。
就專利侵權議題而言，「介入權」是指系爭專利獲准後面對「舉發、無效、異議」等行政或司法程序的"介入"時，系爭專利範圍有實質變更，讓被告（侵權者）排除這段時間被主張的損害賠償。
這個權利原本屬於發明人的，但是會因為各種因素產生變化，例如專利申請，程序大致上是：與代理人述說發明內容、代理人撰稿（專利工程師）、提出申請（可能還有"翻譯"）、審查（一或多次）、答辯、修正、訴願、訴訟，最後可能獲准（這段時間已產生變化，但是尚未形成權利），之後，可能會被第三方異議（如舉發、IPR等）、訴願、法院訴訟...最後，會變成一個與最初發明概念有個差異的「發明（申請專利範圍）」，更可能變成與當初公告獲准的專利權不同的專利，中間充滿了被介入、干擾的過程。而這段時間形成了其他人可以主張（或喘息）的介入權。
此案例中，地方法院根據「Intervening Right」限制了原告提出的損害賠償：
"After separate jury and bench trials, the district court held the asserted claims were infringed and not invalid, and granted a permanent injunction. The district court limited
damages due to intervening rights."
Presidio Components v. American Technical Ceramics (Fed. Cir. 2017)案例資訊：
原告/交叉上訴人：PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.
被告/上訴人：AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP. ('ATC')
系爭專利：US6,816,356
本案緣起，專利權人Presidio於2014/9/2對ATC提出侵權告訴，地方法院判決包括專利有效、侵權成立、核發永久禁止令，並給予有限的損害賠償。
系爭專利US6,816,356關於一種多層整合式的電容器設計，利用電容結構的設計造成多層電容結構有邊緣相鄰的結構而產生「邊界效應電容值（fringe-effect）」的效果。
1. A capacitor comprising:
a substantially monolithic dielectric body;
a conductive first plate disposed within the dielectric body;
a conductive second plate disposed within the dielectric body and forming a capacitor with the first plate;
a conductive first contact disposed externally on the dielectric body and electrically connected to the first plate; and
a conductive second contact disposed externally on the dielectric body and electrically connected to the second plate, and the second contact being located sufficiently close to the first contact to form a first fringe-effect capacitance with the first contact.
本案在地院審查過程，被告ATC提出「ex parte reexamination」，Presidio在再審程序中修正專利範圍，並經USPTO認證專利權，其中Claim 1修正與Certificate如下：
接著，Presidio回頭修正侵權訴狀，重新回到侵權訴訟中，被告仍是'ATC'。
地院判決，作出專利權沒有不明確、陪審團裁定的直接且"蓄意"侵權成立（lost-profit damage：$2,166,654）、對被告發出永久禁制令，以及同意被告主張因為系爭專利在再審階段修正產生的「介入權」等決定。
對此決定，被告與原告都上訴CAFC。
之於原告Presidio，自然有不滿之處，包括拿不夠損害賠償，此議題直指被告所主張的「介入權（Intervening Right）」。
在「介入權」的議題中，需要討論何時有"介入"？判決書說是「December 8, 2015」之前，也就是reexamination決定之前，被告可以主張介入權而排除這段時間的損害賠償。如以下摘錄段落，法院認為，如果原始專利與修正後專利不是"實質一樣"，專利權人在reexamination之後無法主張這段時間（原始專利權領證日到再審之後重新領證日之間）的侵權賠償。
"An owner of a patent that survives reexamination is not entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and amended claims are not “substantially identical.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, 307(b)."
修改Claim 1的部分就如上述畫底線的地方，地院與CAFC都認為這些修改已經有實質改變。
（重要）即使專利權人/原告Presidio主張這些修正是要採用地方法院在Reexamination之前的申請專利解釋，但是Presidio在再審程序中已經使用更明確的解釋，但是這些都不是重點，重點是專利範圍已經被實質變更了，與專利權人意圖無關。
"As we have explained, “[u]nder the statute and our prior case law, it is irrelevant why an amended claim is narrowed during reexamination, or even whether the patentee intended to narrow the claim in a particular way.”"
（重要）再審程序中的修正是要了要克服新的證據所作的修正，對於系爭專利所著重最後產生的「邊界效應電容值（fringe-effect）」，先前技術採用了相同的理論計算，對了克服這個前案，專利權人排除倚賴理論計算的方式，而採用實質計算...，這些產生不小的禁反言效力，也產生實質變更專利範圍的效果。
這些同樣也涉及如何解釋專利範圍，前後的解釋結果會影響是否專利範圍被實質變更的判斷，在此仍搬出Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)案例來解決。
"Therefore, there was a substantive change in claim scope. Under the scope of the original claims, theoretical calculations are sufficient to satisfy the claim limitations. Under the amendment claims, they are not. Based on this substantive change in claim scope, the district court properly granted the affirmative defense of absolute intervening rights."
再來是「損失-利益（lost profit）」議題。自然是原告的舉證責任，要證明「but for」，也就是要證明要不是被告侵權，否則這些利益應該是原告的。
"To recover lost profits, the patentee bears the burden of proof to show a “reasonable probability that, ‘but for’ infringement, it would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.”"
關於如何證明對手的利益是自己的損失，這裡提到幾點要件（four-factor Panduit test）：
(1) demand for the patented product;
(2) an absence of acceptable, noninfringing substitutes;
(3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and
(4) the amount of profit that would have been made.
(1)大眾對專利產品的需求；
(2)缺乏可接受的非侵權替代品；
(3)原告對於上述需求具有開發與行銷能力（排除NPE）；以及
(4)證明所述損失是自己可以產生的利潤。
然而，證據顯示原告並以上可以要求「損失-利益」的資格，這裡忽略一些細節討論，不過卻很鼓勵遇到問題的人好好來研究。（忍不住講這個，關於是否有非侵權的替代品，在討論過程中提到如果是沒有侵權物等級（好）的產品，不能稱為非侵權替代品）
CAFC判決：
確認專利權（沒有不明確），但因為專利在再審程序（reexamination）中曾經實質修正，因此由被告主張介入權（Intervening Right），同意地院拒絕原告進一步賠償的要求，並因為證據不足而判斷被告的利益不能成為原告的損失（損失利益 - lost profits），發回地院以合理授權金（reasonable royalty）判其損害賠償，加上撤銷永久禁制令。
[法條參考]
35 U.S.C. 318 DECISION OF THE BOARD.
(a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.—If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d).
(b) CERTIFICATE.—If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent by operation of the certificate any new or amended claim determined to be patentable.
(c) INTERVENING RIGHTS.—Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following an inter partes review under this chapter shall have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation therefor, before the issuance of a certificate under subsection (b).
(d) DATA ON LENGTH OF REVIEW.—The Office shall make available to the public data describing the length of time between the institution of, and the issuance of a final written decision under subsection (a) for, each inter partes review.
35 U.S.C. 252 EFFECT OF REISSUE
（本條忽略）
35 U.S.C. 307 CERTIFICATE OF PATENTABILITY, UNPATENTABILITY, AND CLAIM CANCELLATION.
(a) In a reexamination proceeding under this chapter, when the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.
(b) Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation for the same, prior to issuance of a certificate under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
CAFC判決：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2607.Opinion.11-17-2017.1.PDF （備份：https://app.box.com/s/pj5a999939m6tenu9pjnfjqyujcxmz4y）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/11/intervening-rights-profits.html
（網路資料）為了確保我的理解是正確的，找了一些「介入權」的網路資料：
https://baike.baidu.com/item/介入权
http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-109.htm（本篇很不錯）
美國專利舉發制度及其相關爭議問題簡介――以多方複審（IPR）案件為中心：
https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/68311741459.pdf
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言