本案資訊：
原告/上訴人：SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人：DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC.
系爭專利：US4,751,578、US5,038,211、US5,293,357
判決日：February 12, 2004
此案緣起專利權人SuperGuide對多家公司提起侵權訴訟，經簡易判決後，地院判侵權不成立，原告上訴CAFC，主要議題是圍繞在解釋專利範圍。
關於系爭專利'578，爭議的專利範圍用語為"regularly received television signal", "radio frequency information", "mixer", "to perform a search"與"desired format"；在系爭專利'211中，爭議的專利用語為"at least one of"與"meet"；對於系爭專利'357，爭議用語為"automatically electronically converting", "for directly controlling a recording device", "event timer"。有興趣者可以參考原文（如本文末連結）。
這裡談「at least one of」與「meet」。
系爭專利US5,038,211的Claim 1：
「at least one of」：
上訴理由中，SuperGuide對於「at least one of」的解釋是"選擇與儲存"4個列舉的標準的「一個或多個」，但沒有要求儲存全部的標準。
"On appeal, SuperGuide contends that the claim phrase "at least one of" unambiguously requires the selection and storage of one or more of the four listed criteria (start time, end time, service channel, or type) and does not require storing all four criteria."
DirecTV對於「at least one of」的解釋是："at least one of"適用在列舉標準的每一個。
"DirecTV counters that the district court's construction is supported by the patentee's use of the conjunctive word "and" and by the grammatical rule requiring that the phrase "at least one of" be applied to each category in the list."
法院的意見是偏向Direct TV，根據字面與一般意思，如地院解釋，所述「at least one of」意思是「one or more」。
"We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed language supports the district court's construction and that the phrase "at least one of" means "one or more." Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.1999)."
例如'211案Claim 1中的一句話「at least one of the desired program start time, the desired program end time, the desired program service and the desired program type...」，"at least one of"寫在列舉的4個項目前，而這4個項目最後適用"and"連結。這時法院著墨在「文法」上，舉例來說，"in spring, summer, or winter"指的是"in spring, in summer, or in winter"，系爭專利使用"at least one of"修飾列舉的4個項目，解釋起來應該是每個項目的"at least one"。
也就是說，就法院的解釋，不是"one or more"所列舉的4個項目（ the desired program start time, the desired program end time, the desired program service and the desired program type），而是每個項目的"at least one"（每個項目都至少一個）。
然而，根據系爭專利說明書內容，也不是每次提到這4個項目，前面都有「at least one of」，只是系爭專利說明書也沒有反駁上述以字面與一般意思解釋的方式。
"We further conclude that nothing in the specification rebuts the presumption that the '211 patentee intended the plain and ordinary meaning of this language."
也就是："Every disclosed embodiment teaches that the user must choose a value for each designated category."。
"the system's user must choose at least one value for each designated criteria, or the logic would be inoperable. '211 patent, fig. 4a."
（重要）原則上，解釋「at least one of」這種有些爭議的用語，就先依照說明書內容（文字與圖式），以字面與一般意思解釋，文法上，「at least one of」位置以及後面接著的項目是用「and」或是「or」，也都影響著如何解釋專利範圍。
（重要）專利撰寫有個特性是，發明人可以自己定義各種用語（lexicographer），只要說明書支持其定義，就會以發明人自己定義的意思來解釋！
「meet」：
'211的Claim中有段內容：
second storing means ... for storing selected portions of received television program schedule information which meet at least one of the desired program start time, the desired program end time, the desired program service, and the desired program type
這裡的「meet」在「at least one of」之前，SuperGuide的解釋是「satisfy」：「SuperGuide advocates "satisfies" as the one definition that makes most sense as used in claim 1.」。
DirecTV的解釋是「equal to or matching」（這也是地方法院的解釋）：「DirecTV responds by first making a procedural argument that SuperGuide conceded before the district court that "meet" means "equal to or matching" and thus waived its right to assert a different construction on appeal. 」。
這回涉及專利權人SuperGuide在地院拋棄了解釋範圍的說法，因此成為這個用語的限制，法院的意見是："We agree with DirecTV that SuperGuide waived its right to assert a construction other than "matches or equals" for the term "meet.""
「Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc. (2004)」
CAFC判決原文：https://scholar.google.com.tw/scholar_case?case=8801876997298455702&q=Superguide+Corp.+v.+Direct+TV+Enterprises,+Inc.+(2004)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言