國外獲利納入美國損害賠償的計算 - WesternGeco v. Ion (Supreme Court 2018)

最高法院在WesternGeco v. Ion案中確立國外利潤符合35U.S.C.271(f)規範損害賠償的原則。

WesternGeco公司擁有的系爭專利（US6,691,038, 7,080,607, 7,162,967, and 7,293,520）關於調查海底資訊的系統，被告Ion Geophysical公司販售競爭產品，被告產品中有部分元件在美國製造，並出口到國外，再組合成一個與原告產品相同的系統。因此原告依照35 U. S. C. §§271(f)(1) and (f)(2)提出侵權告訴。


在地方法院階段，陪審團判決侵權成立，並依照35 U. S. C. §284根據權利金與損失作出損害賠償的決定。被告提出請願，認為271(f)並不及於國外的獲利而能納入賠償金額。

地院否決此請願，但經上訴CAFC後，CAFC在2016年的判決中認為Ion侵權成立（271(f)(2)），但271(f)卻沒有讓專利權人可以將國外的利潤作為損害賠償的一部分，因此撤回地院作出非蓄意侵權的決定，並發回重新考量追加損害賠償（enhanced damage）的決定。

案件進入最高法院。

主要議題是，是否國外的獲利可以成為國內求償損害賠償的一部分？

有個用字「extraterritoriality」，翻為「治外法權」，議題是，是否美國國內法及於國外的行為？是否美國聯邦法僅(updated on Jul. 26, 2018)適用美國國境外？

在專利法第284條規定中，法院應判給專利權人（求償者）足以補償侵權造成的損害的損害賠償（"court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement"）。專利法第271(f)(2)條規定是原告根據侵權主張獲利即損害的依據（lost-profits damages），其中規定未授權而"在或從"美國的供應或致使供應的元件（"supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention"），如果知悉這是用於"境外組合"成為具有專利的產品上，此元件在美國的製造者仍為侵權者。

如此，最高法院認為，根據專利法第284條規定的損害賠償即包括271(f)(2)規定的從美國出口的元件。
"In sum, the focus of §284 in a case involving infringement under §271(f)(2) is on the act of exporting components from the United States."

損害賠償本身僅是法規實現補償其侵權行為的手段（means）。
"The damages themselves are merely the means by which the statute achieves its end of remedying infringements,"

因此，海外的事件（侵權）的利潤引起損害賠償僅是侵權行為的附帶事件。
"...the overseas events giving rise to the lost-profit damages here were merely incidental to the infringement."

在美國國外的損失適用治外法權，成為國內損害賠償的一部分。
"In asserting that damages awards for foreign injuries are always an extraterritorial application of a damages provision."

最高法院判決：原告獲得被告獲利產生的損害賠償，這是284允許的情況。
"WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284 of the Patent Act."

my two cents:
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。

其他部落格報導：
- 筆記美國專利法第271條（http://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/11/271.html）
- 供應國外生產的多元件侵權產品的單一元件不構成侵害271(f)(1) - Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. (Supreme Court 2017)（http://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/02/271f1-life-technologies-corp-v-promega.html）

[法條]
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.
(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.
...

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.


最高法院意見：
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1011_6j37.pdf
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/dtmhnqtrhj554oktv9jd5txkef6sllva）

WesternGeco v. Ion在2016年的CAFC判決：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1527.Opinion.9-19-2016.1.PDF

資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/06/westerngeco-available-infringement.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/westerngeco-llc-v-ion-geophysical-corp-2/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/06/22/industry-reaction-westerngeco-llc-v-ion-geophysical/id=98636/
http://www.patentdocs.org/2018/06/westerngeco-llc-v-ion-geophysical-corp-2018.html

Ron