Rule 36之後呢？（之二）

筆記

本篇筆記上訴美國最高法院的時機與條件，並不限於在接獲Rule 36決定之後，只是剛好寫在這個主題之下。

前次報導：Rule 36之後呢？（之一）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2018/02/rule-36.html）

美國最高法院：https://www.supremecourt.gov


上訴美國最高法院的時間原則上是接獲聯邦法院，如CAFC，的判決，或是提出petition for rehearing被否決之後90天之內。


並且，相同案件如果也同樣請求原法院復審（petition for rehearing）或是請求en banc聯席法院意見，若此時上訴最高法院，原法院的請願措施都會被撤銷，不能同時進行。

上訴最高法院的意思是請求最高法院「調閱下級文件再審理（"on petition for a writ of certiorari"）」，當最高法院受理後，會提出重審的議題，列舉幾件過去報導：

[+] 在「三星在美國最高法院提出設計專利的移審請願」報導中，最高法院將處理解釋設計專利範圍時，是否要考量功能性元件？以及，當侵權成立，計算損害賠償時，是否僅計算設計所涵蓋的部分？

[+] 在「有關授權金合約與專利誤用的早期最高法院案例 - Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)」報導中，最高法院將對是否在專利權過期後，之前所簽署的合約仍延續其壟斷權？

[+] 在「Akamai V討論 - Limelight v. Akamai Inc. (Nov. 16, 2016 CAFC)」報導中，最高法院提出是否上述CAFC對於單一被告在共同（各方彼此不見得有歸屬）執行專利範圍步驟時仍須擔負直接侵權的意見有誤？的議題。

然而，要讓最高法院接受重審（"Writ of Certiorari"）並不容易，上訴人需要提出令人信服的上訴理由，最高法院主要是要統一各級法院見解，以及對大眾有廣泛爭議的議題提出見解。在最高法院規則10中提到，最高法院很少同意錯誤事實發現或是錯用法律的重審請求（統計發現，從1982年至今，約1000件請求最高法院重審的案件，僅同意31件），其中同意「Writ of Certiorari」的條件：

(a) 各級法院之間對相同議題見解不同而需要更高法院的見解；
(b) 法院之間的見解衝突是個重要的聯邦等級的議題；
(c) 應該解決而未決的聯邦議題，或是見解不同於其他相關案件。

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

• (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
• (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
• (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

Ron