案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：American Innotek, Inc., A California Corporation
被告/被上訴人：United States
系爭專利：US5,116,139
判決日期：December 19, 2017
本案緣起美國創新（American Innotek, Inc）在美國聯邦索賠法院（Court of Federal Claims）對美國政府（United States）提出侵權告訴，但訴訟中，系爭專利被認為因為不具非顯而易知性（35 U.S.C. § 103）無效，原告上訴CAFC。
補充，與美國政府的訴訟爭議要再「美國聯邦索賠法院（CFC）」解決，參考資料：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/08/court-of-federal-claims.html。
系爭專利'139關於一種液體密封袋，如一種尿袋，可以將液體導入隔絕的容器中，袋中有親水性材料，可以迅速凝膠化，之後密封。袋內親水性材料有一些成份，如酶、除臭劑、香料，人體異常指示劑，甚至可驗孕。
Claim 1：
1. A containment bag for a fluid comprising water or water-based liquid such as bodily fluids which comprises:
a bag having a hollow interior defined by two sides meeting at opposite edges, a bottom and a top, with said edges and bottom sealed and said top at least partially open to receiving said;
a gellable hydrophilic material within said bag, said material becoming fully gelled within thirty seconds of said contact with said fluid when said is deposited in said bag, said gellation serving to essentially completely sequester said and prevent said fluid from thereafter being expelled from said bag;
funnel means within said interior and having an open top, said funnel means being secured to said bag at said top of said bag, and extending downwardly within said interior to a narrower open bottom for conduction of fluid entering said open top through said funnel means and into said bag, with the open bottom of said funnel being disposed intermediate between said top and bottom of said bag, said open bottom being free from attachment to said sides of said bag such that flow of any unsequestered fluid within said bag back toward said funnel means acts to close said funnel means to prevent escape of said unsequestered fluid from said bag; and
closure means for closing the top of said bag after introduction of said fluid into said bag.
CFC判決（1頁）從Finnegan網站搜尋得到：https://www.finnegan.com/images/content/1/4/v2/145831/2016.09.08-11cv223-AmericanInnotek-v-US-Order-DI179.pdf
CAFC意見：
「goes too far」，太過分了。
CAFC審理系爭專利的專利性時，認為CFC作出「無論是多麼地"非顯而易見"，仍無法克服先前技術元件有合理成功期待組合的動機（motivation to combine prior art elements with a reasonable expectation of success）的顯而易知證據」的意見，認為CFC太過分了。
CAFC引用案例，指出顯而易知性的客觀指標（objective indicia）：要求每一件案件都要考量「objective indicia」，也就是要更周詳地證明顯而易知性。
“Objective indicia of nonobviousness must be considered in every case where present,” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc).
---------------------
引用案例：蘋果專利有效且侵權勝訴 - 有關證據能力的討論 - Apple v. Samsung (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/apple-v-samsung-fed-cir-2016.html）。
此案例的教示 - The Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness（非顯而易知的客觀指標）
為了避免後見之明，以及故意解讀先前技術的教示產生的不客觀意見，證明發明為非顯而易知的幾個輔助性因素（secondary considerations）或是客觀指標顯得重要。這些輔助性因素是如何連結到被告產品（或其成功）上，需要實質證據來支持這些事實。特別的是，在此案例中，聯席法官要排除所述額外證據「extra-record evidence」。
客觀指標：
- Industry Praise（產業讚賞）
- Copying（仿冒）
- Commercial Success（商業成功）
- Long-Felt Need（長期以來的需求/long-felt but unresolved need）
---------------------
需要客觀的事實證據，最高法院在KSR案例中曾經警告，不要在評估顯而易知時"轉化有用見解"為剛性而強制性的公式（"Supreme Court has warned against transforming “helpful insights” about assessing obviousness into “rigid and mandatory formulas,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). "）。
所謂「客觀指標」，根據先前技術產生的證據的事實發現、先前技術結合或修改的動機，以及基於事實發現的成功的期待。這些原則用以評估各個具體案例，即便認為CFC的意見過份，但是基於整個證據，權衡客觀指標與事實，仍認為系爭專利無效。
結語：
CAFC在簡短的意見中強調「顯而易知性」無效意見需要基於強烈的事實發現，避免用自己的見解來強加在顯而易知性判斷中。
雖不同意部分CFC見解，但是仍同意最終系爭專利無效的決定。
CAFC判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1178.Opinion.12-15-2017.1.PDF
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言