國外獲利的損害賠償討論

本篇回應網友「花田三路」在「國外獲利納入美國損害賠償的計算 - WesternGeco v. Ion (Supreme Court 2018)」一文時提出疑問：
『本案適用的情況是：(1)美國國內製造侵權產品的元件；(2)元件從美國出口；(3)此元件就只是用在侵權產品上；(4)國外獲利成為損害賠償的一部分，這是保障原告的利益。
請問板主大，這是指1~3同時成立嗎？例如:3沒有的話，還會成立嗎？』

感謝網友「花田三路」的回應，讓我有「複習」這個主題的機會。在回答「是」或「否」的答案之前，因為這是個有爭議的議題，我又去爬了一下最高法院的意見書。


這個主要議題是：是否美國國內法及於國外的行為？是否美國聯邦法適用美國國境外？

為何美國法院判決要將「國外獲利」當作損害賠償的依據，看來似乎霸道，卻也合理，因為法律保障了「被侵權者」要獲得「足夠的賠償」，讓法院不能僅以「美國國內」的損害來計算賠償。（參考以下35 U.S. Code § 284中黑斜體標註的這段話）

-----------------------------------------------

35 U.S. Code § 284 - Damages

Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.

When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d).

The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------

主要還是因為35 U.S. Code § 271(f)(2)規定任何人在未經授權的情況下「在美國」或是「從美國」「供應」或「致使供應」專利產品的「元件（any component）」，且這些產品不是一般「非侵權用途」，且將在美國境外組裝，如同在美國境內組合一般地成為侵權者。

-----------------------------------------------

35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent

(f)(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

(f)(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

-----------------------------------------------

將以上兩個法條組合起來，使得美國最高法院有此「國外獲利納入美國損害賠償的計算」的結論。

本案有個前提是「侵權成立」、「產生損失」以及「授權金不足以達到賠償」。

"Respondent ION Geophysical Corp. began selling acompeting system that was built from components manufactured in the United States, shipped to companies abroad, and assembled there into a system indistinguishable from WesternGeco’s. WesternGeco sued for patent infringement under 35 U. S. C. §§271(f)(1) and (f)(2)."

"In late 2007, respondent ION Geophysical Corporationbegan selling a competing system. It manufactured the components for its competing system in the United States and then shipped them to companies abroad. Those companies combined the components to create a surveyingsystem indistinguishable from WesternGeco’s and usedthe system to compete with WesternGeco."

"The jury found ION liable and awardedWesternGeco damages of $12.5 million in royalties and $93.4 million in lost profits."

"The conduct in this case that is relevant to that focus clearly occurred in the United States, as it was ION’s domestic act of supplying the components that infringed WesternGeco’s patents. Thus, the lost-profits damages that were awarded to WesternGeco were a domestic application of §284."

法院認為被告的錯誤如下，因此可知，被告的獲利是在「境外」發生，法院聲明境外的行為仍是產生損害的行為。

"Similarly, ION is mistaken to assert that this case involves an extraterritorial application of §284 simply because “lost-profits damages occurred extraterritorially, and foreign conduct subsequent to [ION’s] infringement was necessary to give rise to the injury.”"

如此，被告是有部分元件在美國製造、出口與國外組裝，然後在國外販售與產生利潤（以上資訊都沒有說，侵權的產品（海底探測系統）在美國製造、販售或出口，而僅是指出其中元件在美國製造與出口）。

適用此「國外獲利納入美國損害賠償的計算」包括以下「所有的」條件（這是我根據本案法院判決歸納出的條件，反過來講，就是少一個就不成立），損害賠償計算的前提是「有侵權產品」、「元件的製造主要是為了提供侵權產品之用」，加上為了「補償專利權人的損失」，才會將國外獲利當作損害賠償計算。

(1)美國國內製造侵權產品的元件；
(2)元件從美國出口；
(3)此元件就只是（或說實質上，因為法條也避免有其他少用的可能而被迴避）用在侵權產品上；
(4)國外獲利成為損害賠償的一部分，這是保障原告的利益。

然而，這可能「茲事體大」，需要有人再去翻盤（這是最高法院了），不過，還是有法官持不同意見，這也就是「有趣」的地方。


my two cents:
我盡力回答如上。

編者備註一下，當有朋友對這裡的內容有回應、批評或是指教，是用文章後方留言留下訊息時，我...恐怕不見得會「發現」而「即時」回應，有些不回應是還在「思考」，...但不久又忘了！真是不好意思。

Ron