案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
被告/被上訴人：TREND MICRO INCORPORATED, TREND MICRO INC. (USA)
系爭專利：US5,987,610, US6,073,142, US6,460,050, and US7,506,155
判決日：December 19, 2019
本案緣起原告Intellectual Ventures於2010年對Trend Micro與Symantec等公司提起專利侵權訴訟，由於各系爭專利關於軟體專利，因此被告提起專利不符適格性的請願，地院在專利適格性上判斷系爭專利'142、'050不符35 U.S.C. § 101規定，CAFC另也認為'610不具可專利性。
於是地院先撤銷對Trend Micro的訴訟。被告Trend Micro（prevailing party）接著提起返還律師費用（5 U.S.C. § 285）的請願，結果地院判斷，在訴訟過程中，原告的專家證人改變了證詞，當中符合規定中的「例外情事」，因此判決原告應返還被告美金「$444,051.14」。
5 U.S.C. § 285
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
原告/上訴人不滿在地院訴訟後（敗訴）判決返還律師費用的決定，提起上訴。
根據被告公司即可知，系爭專利關於防毒、確保文件安全與避免違法（侵害著作權）的相關技術，針對電信（電子傳送、電子郵件）傳送的數據進行防毒與確保內容安全的措施，因為系爭專利橫跨美國專利"5"字頭、"6"字頭與"7"字頭，因此可以看看各個年代對於軟體專利的寫法，在此僅列舉，並不代表這是寫法的討論，也不見得是訴訟標的。
US5,987,610
1. A virus screening method comprising the steps of:
routing a call between a calling party and a called party of a telephone network;
receiving, within the telephone network, computer data from a first party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party;
detecting, within the telephone network, a virus in the computer data; and
in response to detecting the virus, inhibiting communication of at least a portion of the computer data from the telephone network to a second party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party.
1. A post office for receiving and redistributing e-mail messages on a computer network, the post office comprising:
a receipt mechanism that receives an e-mail message from a sender, the e-mail message having at least one specified recipient;
a database of business rules, each business rule specifying an action for controlling the delivery of an e-mail message as a function of an attribute of the e-mail message;
a rule engine coupled to receive an e-mail message from the receipt mechanism and coupled to the database to selectively apply the business rules to the e-mail message to determine from selected ones of the business rules a set of actions to be applied to the e-mail message; and
a distribution mechanism coupled to receive the set of actions from the rule engine and apply at least one action thereof to the e-mail message to control delivery of the e-mail message and which in response to the rule engine applying an action of deferring delivery of the e-mail message, the distribution engine automatically combines the e-mail message with a new distribution list specifying at least one destination post office for receiving the e-mail message for review by an administrator associated with the destination post office, and a rule history specifying the business rules that were determined to be applicable to the e-mail message by at least one rule engine, and automatically delivers the e-mail message to a first destination post office on the distribution list instead of a specified recipient of the e-mail message.
US6,460,050
1. A file content classification system comprising:
a plurality of agents, each agent including a file content ID generator creating file content IDs using a mathematical algorithm, at least one agent provided on one of a plurality of clients;
an ID appearance database, provided on a server, coupled to receive file content IDs from the agents; and
a characteristic comparison routine on the server, identifying a characteristic of the file content based on the appearance of the file content ID in the appearance database and transmitting the characteristic to the client agents.
US7,506,155
1. A method for protecting a network from a virus contained in an e-mail message as executable code, the method comprising:
receiving the e-mail message;
converting the executable code from an executable format to a non-executable format by using an application-level process which retains an appearance, human readability, and semantic content of the e-mail message; and
forwarding the non-executable format to a recipient of the e-mail message.
CAFC針對285條規定的判決：
35 U.S.C. § 285主要議題是，整件訴訟是否符合「exceptional case（例外情事）」，也就是一般來說，訴訟雙方各自承擔法律上的費用，但是如果有敗訴一方符合「例外」的條件，就可能會判賠勝方法律費用。
首先，要看的是「各方在訴訟中的實質力量（substantive strength of a party's litigating position）」或是當中是否有不合理的事情，當判斷是否符合需要返還律師費用的「例外」時，應逐案來審，並以整體環境來考量。
"An exceptional case “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing" law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”
相關案例：地方法院有決定律師費誰付的裁量權 - Octane Fitness v. Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html）
CAFC採用「濫用職權標準（abuse-of-discretion standard）」來審視地院的判斷。相關案例如「Highmark Inc. v. Allcare (Supreme Court 2014)」：
上訴法院應以abuse-of-discretion標準來審視地方法院所做出特殊案子的決定。此處"abuse-of-discretion"標準(濫用裁量權)是指地方法院應該依照證據說話，避免錯誤判斷。
"The abuse-of-discretion standard does not preclude an appellate court’s correction of a district court’s legal or factual error."
當地院判斷原告提起訴訟是否為客觀地不合理時，因為原告證人在訴訟中修改證詞即作出「不合理」的結論，且僅以當中一部分"stand out"於其他案件（僅根據專家證詞的改變），即作出符合"例外情事"的判斷，因此CAFC認為地院這個分析並不適當。
CAFC認為不能僅以案件的一部分"例外（特殊）"就判斷返還一部分費用，應仍以整體來看。
結論：CAFC法官在這個"法律"議題中認為地院並沒有應用適當的標準即判原告應返還律師費用
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1122.Opinion.12-19-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/o2zmnpiwx7aqlrgz9tgjldftrv3im1gb）
有關35 U.S.C. § 285訴訟後是否返還律師費用的案例：
- 不願和解妥協的NEWEGG的勝利方程式 - AdjustaCam v. Newegg (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/07/newegg-adjustacam-v-newegg-fed-cir-2017.html）
- 陪審團不能判賠律師費用 - AIA America v. Avid Radiopharma (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/12/aia-america-v-avid-radiopharma-fed-cir.html）
- 東德州法官用律師費打擊Patent Troll（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/12/patent-troll.html）
- 美國法院要NPE律師自己負擔法律費用 - Gust vs Alphacap Ventures and Richard Juarez（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/03/npe-gust-vs-alphacap-ventures-and.html）
- 結合專利與商標的訴訟以及返還律師費的標準 - Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/11/romag-fasteners-v-fossil-fed-cir-2017.html）
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/12/section-exceptional-insufficient.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言