本篇就告訴我們何謂訴訟中的「prevailing party」？
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
被告/被上訴人：FACEBOOK, INC.
系爭專利：US6,628,314
判決日：October 9, 2019
系爭專利US6,628,314關於一種目標性廣告的電腦介面的方法與裝置，學一下這類專利的一種寫法，除了Claim 1界定的「A computer-readable memory for use by a computer to provide a user of the computer with an automatically-upgradeable software application」，系爭請求項主要為Claim 11「A method of providing demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user」。
Claim 11：
11. A method of providing demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user, comprising the steps of:
providing a server that is accessible via a computer network,
permitting a computer user to access said server via said computer network,
acquiring demographic information about the user, said demographic information including information specifically provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic information,
providing the user with download access to computer software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising content, records computer usage information concerning the user's utilization of the computer, and periodically requests additional advertising content,
transferring a copy of said software to the computer in response to a download request by the user,
providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said computer network from the computer to said server,
associating said unique identifier with demographic information in a database,
selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in accordance with the demographic information associated with said unique identifier;
transferring said advertising content from said server to the computer for display by said program,
periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the computer via said computer network, and
associating said computer usage information with said demographic information using said unique identifier.
本案緣起B.E. Technology公司於2012年向Facebook提起侵權訴訟，當時同列為被告的還有Microsoft與Google，這些被告"大人"們顯然不好惹，就連翻提出多個IPR來弄這個系爭專利。地院即等待IPR結果，其中有三件最終決定判定系爭專利無效。B.E.提起上訴，CAFC先對Microsoft決定，又撤銷多個與Google的上訴議題，最後保留了Facebook案。
Facebook先前在地方法院中提起請願，B.E.同意撤銷，把所有系爭專利範圍刪除，訴訟標的就消失了，也就不用繼續處理侵權議題，不過，這段時間Facebook提起返回訴訟費用，但被地方法院拒絕，不過經更新請願，地院最終還是同意B.E.提給Facebook 4,424美元（法庭費用），因為Facebook在此訴訟中為勝方/優勢方（prevailing party）。
依照聯邦民事規則，若撤銷訴訟具有損害與費用（dismissal with prejudice and costs），費用是要award給prevailing party的。
----------------------
[法條]
（Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs）
Rule 54 (d) Costs; Attorney’s Fees.
(1) Costs Other Than Attorney’s Fees. Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk’s action.
(2) Attorney’s Fees.
(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney’s fees and related nontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.
另一相似專利法：35 U.S.C. 285 ATTORNEY FEES.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
----------------------B.E.的意見是，訴訟案因為PTAB決定（IPR）而撤銷，Facebook不算「勝方（prevailing party）」，並且B.E.為了撤銷訴訟，還將系爭專利範圍全刪了，使得訴訟失去標的，主張Facebook不算勝方！
Facebook的答辯意見是，因為Facebook成功地抵制了B.E.的主張，因此Facebook算勝方！
CAFC階段：
看一下Facebook的說法，也是法院採用的說法：地方法院是撤銷了訴訟，儘管不是因為其優勢，但仍是在司法的認可（judicial imprimatur）所作出的決定。
（重要）這個看法也是隨著最高法院對於Buckhannon案作出的意見，當法院並未因為某一方的優勢作出判決，或僅是法院的一個命令，但是因為訴訟造成被告自願改變（voluntary change）得到預期的結果，使得該方仍是勝方（prevailing party）。
法院認同一種「催化」理論，也就是訴訟中雙方的法律關係中即便沒有司法認同的改變，但訴訟仍因為被告的改變帶來預期的結果，防守方的行為"催化"了訴訟結果，因此另一方仍判為勝方（prevailing party）。
不過，仍不是那個簡單，勝方的條件還是需要法院的認同。
"Thus, the Court stated, a “plaintiff who, by simply filing a nonfrivolous but nonetheless potentially meritless lawsuit (it will never be determined), has reached the ‘sought-after destination’ without obtaining any judicial relief” would not be a prevailing party."
CRST為負面的案例：
（編按，細節可看判決，也還有其他案例）
回到本案，對於本案原告B.E.，即便拿出CRST來對應，法官厲害的是，不看CRST的結果，看的是過程如何論述勝方的條件，其中看的是如Facebook的一方是否有效抵擋了原告的主張，B.E.並無法拿出反對的說法。
CAFC同意地院判決。
my two cents:
這篇對多數人來說其實是沒有多大的意義的，除非你面對了對方撤告但是又想要返還一些費用的情況，但我鍾情的是當中很多的邏輯思考，即便英文沒有好到什麼都看得懂，但仍感到很有趣。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2356.Opinion.10-9-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/u034mmo7v6q61ql2ky0ervyk7n2aafql）
資訊參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/10/facebook-prevailing-dismissed.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言