Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2008)
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：COHESIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
被告/交叉上訴人：WATERS CORPORATION
系爭專利：US 5,772,874 (the “’874 patent”)、US 5,919,368 (the “’368 patent”).
判決日：October 7, 2008
本案緣起原告Cohesive對被告Waters連續提出三件專利侵權告訴，被告產品為一種高效液相色譜（30 μm Oasis high-performance liquid chromatography (“HPLC”) columns (the “30 μm columns”)、25 μm Oasis HPLC columns）。地院在第一案判決專利有效、'874專利侵權成立；第二案判專利有效以及侵權賠償（被告提出不公平行為不成立）；第三案則判侵權不成立（均等論不成立）。對此判決，雙方都上訴。
（本案辯證過程很重要，所以底下內容像是我的筆記，不是結論說「about」怎麼解釋而已）
CAFC判決，同意地院對於專利用語「rigid」的解釋以及被告Waters的「30 μm產品」侵權成立的決定；但對於被告Waters的「25 μm產品」的訴訟（第三案），CAFC不同意地院對專利範圍中「greater than about 30 μm」的解釋，照CAFC解釋，Waters無法排除不侵權（文義讀取）的責任。
系爭專利關於HPLC，這是一種分離，識別和測量液體中所含化合物的方法，常用於血液中藥物成份測試（血液透析），
系爭專利US 5,772,874（'368案為'874案的分割案）：
'874案Claim 1界定一液相色譜裝置，其中包括有個色譜體，為在活性表面上均勻形成多個剛性固體多孔顆粒的色譜體，顆粒的平均直徑大於約30μm，顆粒之間的間隙體積不小於總量的約45％ 柱的體積；以及，以可與活性表面反應的溶液以流體方式，以降速約大於5000的速度載到所述柱內。
1. Chromatography apparatus comprising, in combination,
1. A method of performing liquid chromatography comprising the steps of:
以上列舉的專利範圍涉及化學成份，申請人多處採用「不明確」的用語，如substantially, about, than（大小）、rigid（軟硬）等，但在相關領域的專利卻是常見，因此，爭議也就來了，如何「明確解釋這些不明確用語」？
本案中，解釋專利範圍時，爭議的兩個特徵是：
- particles that are “rigid”
- have average diameters “greater than about 30 μm”
第一個爭議：rigid。
地方法院解釋「rigid」為「“an object’s capacity to maintain substantially zero changes in density and volume under packing pressure of at least about 5000 psi and as a consequence substantially to resist plastic deformation under such pressure.”」，中文意思是，一個「物體」的容量（capacity）在至少約5000 psi(磅每平方英寸)壓力下維持其「密度」與「體積」實質零變化，以及在此壓力下抵抗有任何塑性變形。
但是否符合上述硬度條件就是rigid了？
CAFC解釋時，以案例Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)為原則解釋專利範圍（參考Phillips v. AWH），以相關領域技術人員可以瞭解、根據說明書、審查歷史、外部證據為輔解釋用語。
“The court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
雖然被告主張專利權人在專利審查期間已經拋棄了「聚合物」顆粒，但是就各種證據（主要是說明書實施例）來看，CAFC仍將rigid顆粒解釋包含了單體（monomeric）顆粒與聚合物顆粒，只要在上述定義下的顆粒都是。
CAFC決定，以上證據足夠讓陪審團認定被告「30 μm產品」為"rigid"。
第二個爭議：greater than about 30μm。
被告「25 μm/30 μm產品」為"rigid"，但是否落於其他專利特徵內？就要討論是否落於系爭專利範圍中「greater than about 30 μm」的條件中？
系爭專利關於HPLC，這是一種分離，識別和測量液體中所含化合物的方法，常用於血液中藥物成份測試（血液透析），
系爭專利US 5,772,874（'368案為'874案的分割案）：
'874案Claim 1界定一液相色譜裝置，其中包括有個色譜體，為在活性表面上均勻形成多個剛性固體多孔顆粒的色譜體，顆粒的平均直徑大於約30μm，顆粒之間的間隙體積不小於總量的約45％ 柱的體積；以及，以可與活性表面反應的溶液以流體方式，以降速約大於5000的速度載到所述柱內。
1. Chromatography apparatus comprising, in combination,
a chromatographic body formed as a substantially uniformly distributed multiplicity of rigid, solid, porous particles with chromatographically active surfaces, said particles having average diameters of greater than about 30 μm, the interstitial volume between said particles being not less than about 45% of the total volume of said column; and
means for loading said surfaces with at least one solute that is reactive with said surfaces, by flowing a liquid mixture containing said solute through said body at a velocity sufficient to induce flow of said mixture within at least a substantial portion of said interstitial volume at a reduced velocity greater than about 5,000.
15. In chromatography apparatus including a chromatographic column formed as a bed of a packed multiplicity of rigid solid particles having substantially uniform mean diameters of not less than about 30 μm, the surfaces of said particles being chromatographically active and wherein a solute introduced into said bed tends to become non-specifically bound to said particles, the improvement including
means for injecting a liquid mixture comprising said solute into said column at a reduced velocity greater than about 5,000 so as to load said particles with said solute; and
means for eluting the loaded solute from said particles by flowing eluant fluid through said column at an average reduced velocity greater than about 5000.
16. A chromatographic column comprising, in combination,
a container packed with a substantially uniformly distributed multiplicity of rigid, solid, porous particles with chromatographically active surfaces, said particle having substantially uniform average diameters in the range between about 30 to about 500 μm, the interstitial volume between said particles being greater than about 45% of the total volume of said body, said volume being formed of a multiplicity of interstitial channels between said particles, at least a majority of said channels having mean cross-section dimensions substantially not less than about 5 μm.
'368案Claim 1：1. A method of performing liquid chromatography comprising the steps of:
packing within a tubular container a substantially uniformly distributed multiplicity of rigid, solid, porous particles with chromatographically active surfaces, so as to form a chromatographic column having an interstitial volume between said particles, said particles having average diameters of not less than about 30 μm; and
loading said surfaces with at least one solute that is reactive with said surfaces, by flowing a liquid mixture containing said solute through said column at a velocity sufficient to induce flow of said mixture within at least a substantial portion of said interstitial volume at a reduced velocity greater than about 5,000.
以上列舉的專利範圍涉及化學成份，申請人多處採用「不明確」的用語，如substantially, about, than（大小）、rigid（軟硬）等，但在相關領域的專利卻是常見，因此，爭議也就來了，如何「明確解釋這些不明確用語」？
本案中，解釋專利範圍時，爭議的兩個特徵是：
- particles that are “rigid”
- have average diameters “greater than about 30 μm”
第一個爭議：rigid。
地方法院解釋「rigid」為「“an object’s capacity to maintain substantially zero changes in density and volume under packing pressure of at least about 5000 psi and as a consequence substantially to resist plastic deformation under such pressure.”」，中文意思是，一個「物體」的容量（capacity）在至少約5000 psi(磅每平方英寸)壓力下維持其「密度」與「體積」實質零變化，以及在此壓力下抵抗有任何塑性變形。
但是否符合上述硬度條件就是rigid了？
CAFC解釋時，以案例Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)為原則解釋專利範圍（參考Phillips v. AWH），以相關領域技術人員可以瞭解、根據說明書、審查歷史、外部證據為輔解釋用語。
“The court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
雖然被告主張專利權人在專利審查期間已經拋棄了「聚合物」顆粒，但是就各種證據（主要是說明書實施例）來看，CAFC仍將rigid顆粒解釋包含了單體（monomeric）顆粒與聚合物顆粒，只要在上述定義下的顆粒都是。
CAFC決定，以上證據足夠讓陪審團認定被告「30 μm產品」為"rigid"。
第二個爭議：greater than about 30μm。
被告「25 μm/30 μm產品」為"rigid"，但是否落於其他專利特徵內？就要討論是否落於系爭專利範圍中「greater than about 30 μm」的條件中？
「25 μm產品」顯然並不符合「文義讀取」。
但地方法院解釋"greater than about 30μm"並沒有涵蓋直徑為25 μm的顆粒，因為這句話甚至都排除了"29.01 μm"。
CAFC認為，地院解釋不僅將被告25 μm產品排除在外，也將「about」用語排除了！
顯然，CAFC法官認為「about」在專利範圍中具有一定的影響，考量了申請人申請時寫為「greater than about 30 μm」，而不是「greater than 30 μm」，由此可知，申請人不希望排除如29 μm的顆粒。
引用案例Bicon，以眼看去給予所有請求項用語的效果來解釋專利範圍。甚至也提到"approximately"意思是「合理接近」，並沒有明確底線。
法官也認為，「about」並沒有通用的意思，而是根據技術事實與案件實際情況，這裡就教育我們「about」怎麼解釋：
用在數值，"about"排除了嚴格的數值邊界，其範圍必須在其技術和文體前後文解釋。
"When “about” is used as part of a numeric range, “the use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context.”"
怎麼解釋"about 30μm"是可以到多小？就看寫成about 30μm的意圖，也就是整體申請專利範圍的意圖，也就是說，在本案中，顆粒"about 30μm"的底線到多大的尺寸還可以運作申請專利範圍所記載的發明。
"In other words, we must look to the purpose that the “about 30 μm” limitation serves, to determine how much smaller than 30 μm the average particle diameter can be and still serve that purpose. To be clear, it is the purpose of the limitation in the claimed invention—not the purpose of the invention itself—that is relevant. Thus, we ask what function the “about 30 μm” low-end limit on particle size plays in the operation of the claimed apparatus and method."
回到說明書實施例中，提到平均顆粒直徑的幾個數值：50 μm, 20 μm, and 10 μm產生的流動率，而提到使用 20 μm與10 μm顆粒時，不會形成「turbulence」，50 μm顆粒可以，又說這些顆粒大小不一，但在一定形狀與大小範圍內，甚至為不規則形狀的顆粒，
說明書這段內容讓CAFC法官最終認定「about 30 μm」涵蓋到25 μm的顆粒。
這句話的42.39 μm仍被發明人認為是「about 50 μm」範圍中，依照比例，「about 30 μm」可以涵蓋到25.434 μm到34.566 μm之間。也順便算了一下「about 20μm」上下限為16.956 μm與23.044 μm。再配合一些合理的邏輯，最後法官得到他要的判斷依據。
"“about 30 μm” means a particle of sufficiently large size to assure that a column containing the particles is capable of attaining turbulence."
真是個...特別的判斷方式，但是說實在的，這個"精準"的判斷也不見得是發明人當初的本意。
其實還有一個形成「法官偏向專利權人的心證」的理由，就是，被告Waters一方解釋專利範圍時，刻意排除了「about」用語，而申請人在專利審查過程並未定義明確的"about"範圍，使得被告解釋範圍不合理。
但，以上述方式解釋「about」，這是「文義讀取」還是「均等論適用」的階段？
要澄清的是，以上解釋「about 30μm」都還在「解釋專利範圍」的步驟，還沒有到侵權判斷，更沒有到均等論適用（function, way, result）等判斷。
CAFC認為地院對於「文義讀取」的分析是錯的，而對「均等論適用」，法院認為這不是用來「放寬專利範圍」，反而是，發明本身產生較寬的應用才適用均等論。本案不適用均等論。
"We have never held that the doctrine of equivalents is inapplicable to broad claims; to the contrary, we have emphasized that pioneering inventions often, by their very nature, result in broader application of the doctrine of equivalents."
而是，申請專利範圍使用了「about」用語，這個用語涵蓋了執行相同功能、用相同方式，產生如30μm結果的顆粒。
"As our construction makes clear, “about 30 μm” encompasses particle diameters that perform the same function, in the same way, with the same result as the 30 μm particles, as long as those diameters are within the range left open by the specific disclosures of the specification."
結論是，因為解釋專利範圍已經讓「about 30μm」在文義上有一定的範圍，涵蓋任何可以執行相同功能、用相同的方式，產生相同結果直徑的顆粒，而不是因為「均等論」而放大範圍的。本案發回重審。
"because the “about 30 μm” limitation already literally encompasses diameters that are equivalent to 30 μm in the context of the patent, any particle diameter that performs the same function, in the same way, with the same result as a 30 μm diameter is already within the literal scope of the claim."
用在數值，"about"排除了嚴格的數值邊界，其範圍必須在其技術和文體前後文解釋。
"When “about” is used as part of a numeric range, “the use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context.”"
怎麼解釋"about 30μm"是可以到多小？就看寫成about 30μm的意圖，也就是整體申請專利範圍的意圖，也就是說，在本案中，顆粒"about 30μm"的底線到多大的尺寸還可以運作申請專利範圍所記載的發明。
"In other words, we must look to the purpose that the “about 30 μm” limitation serves, to determine how much smaller than 30 μm the average particle diameter can be and still serve that purpose. To be clear, it is the purpose of the limitation in the claimed invention—not the purpose of the invention itself—that is relevant. Thus, we ask what function the “about 30 μm” low-end limit on particle size plays in the operation of the claimed apparatus and method."
回到說明書實施例中，提到平均顆粒直徑的幾個數值：50 μm, 20 μm, and 10 μm產生的流動率，而提到使用 20 μm與10 μm顆粒時，不會形成「turbulence」，50 μm顆粒可以，又說這些顆粒大小不一，但在一定形狀與大小範圍內，甚至為不規則形狀的顆粒，
說明書這段內容讓CAFC法官最終認定「about 30 μm」涵蓋到25 μm的顆粒。
這句話的42.39 μm仍被發明人認為是「about 50 μm」範圍中，依照比例，「about 30 μm」可以涵蓋到25.434 μm到34.566 μm之間。也順便算了一下「about 20μm」上下限為16.956 μm與23.044 μm。再配合一些合理的邏輯，最後法官得到他要的判斷依據。
"“about 30 μm” means a particle of sufficiently large size to assure that a column containing the particles is capable of attaining turbulence."
真是個...特別的判斷方式，但是說實在的，這個"精準"的判斷也不見得是發明人當初的本意。
其實還有一個形成「法官偏向專利權人的心證」的理由，就是，被告Waters一方解釋專利範圍時，刻意排除了「about」用語，而申請人在專利審查過程並未定義明確的"about"範圍，使得被告解釋範圍不合理。
但，以上述方式解釋「about」，這是「文義讀取」還是「均等論適用」的階段？
要澄清的是，以上解釋「about 30μm」都還在「解釋專利範圍」的步驟，還沒有到侵權判斷，更沒有到均等論適用（function, way, result）等判斷。
CAFC認為地院對於「文義讀取」的分析是錯的，而對「均等論適用」，法院認為這不是用來「放寬專利範圍」，反而是，發明本身產生較寬的應用才適用均等論。本案不適用均等論。
"We have never held that the doctrine of equivalents is inapplicable to broad claims; to the contrary, we have emphasized that pioneering inventions often, by their very nature, result in broader application of the doctrine of equivalents."
而是，申請專利範圍使用了「about」用語，這個用語涵蓋了執行相同功能、用相同方式，產生如30μm結果的顆粒。
"As our construction makes clear, “about 30 μm” encompasses particle diameters that perform the same function, in the same way, with the same result as the 30 μm particles, as long as those diameters are within the range left open by the specific disclosures of the specification."
結論是，因為解釋專利範圍已經讓「about 30μm」在文義上有一定的範圍，涵蓋任何可以執行相同功能、用相同的方式，產生相同結果直徑的顆粒，而不是因為「均等論」而放大範圍的。本案發回重審。
"because the “about 30 μm” limitation already literally encompasses diameters that are equivalent to 30 μm in the context of the patent, any particle diameter that performs the same function, in the same way, with the same result as a 30 μm diameter is already within the literal scope of the claim."
my two cents:
本案例的資訊是來自工業技術研究院「從美國訴訟淺談專利撰寫答辯及請求項用語解釋研討會」的議程所揭示的內容。
面對一些不明確用語，其實在相關領域中應該具備其通常定義，只是在法院侵權判斷中仍需要客觀的數據支持。
"rigid"怎麼定義，此案例也告訴了我們。
我認為CAFC法官"看穿了申請人的心意"，或說他實在很幫專利權人的忙，甚至超過原本發明的意圖（我覺得），當申請人/發明人使用了「about」，意圖是很明顯，就是希望可以涵蓋30 μm上下一定的範圍，要不然也不會加入「about」，我認為這是很客觀或是睿智的判斷（用很精準的數學概念來看）。
本案例的資訊是來自工業技術研究院「從美國訴訟淺談專利撰寫答辯及請求項用語解釋研討會」的議程所揭示的內容。
面對一些不明確用語，其實在相關領域中應該具備其通常定義，只是在法院侵權判斷中仍需要客觀的數據支持。
"rigid"怎麼定義，此案例也告訴了我們。
我認為CAFC法官"看穿了申請人的心意"，或說他實在很幫專利權人的忙，甚至超過原本發明的意圖（我覺得），當申請人/發明人使用了「about」，意圖是很明顯，就是希望可以涵蓋30 μm上下一定的範圍，要不然也不會加入「about」，我認為這是很客觀或是睿智的判斷（用很精準的數學概念來看）。
當然，「不明確用語」怎麼解釋，常常仍是case by case，就「合理地」解釋就是了。
「說明書/實施例」在這樣不明確用語的解釋仍擔負了太重要的功能。
「說明書/實施例」在這樣不明確用語的解釋仍擔負了太重要的功能。
資料參考：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/08-1029.pdf（CAFC判決書，備份：https://app.box.com/s/cxij5qaeak32qyhi4ezbt2iqu5ve7q2l）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言