案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
被告/交叉上訴人：MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
系爭專利：US6,397,622
判決日：February 19, 2021
本案緣起原告與被告雙方對美國地方法院（Eastern District of Arkansas）作出公平中介權（equitable intervening rights）與審查懈怠（prosecution laches）等判決提出上訴/交叉上訴。
系爭專利關於一種螺旋形食物冷卻器，原告與被告雙方是本地僅有的競爭者！
Morris於2002年向John Beane公司寄出解釋系爭專利無效的信函，但John Bean沒有回覆，Morris則是開始開發與販售如系爭專利揭露的冷卻器。
過了11年，2013年，John Bean對自己的專利提起美國再審程序（ex parte reexamination），其目的是要自己修正與增加專利範圍，USPTO於2014年做出專利有效的再審決定。
John Bean也向地院提起Morris侵害系爭專利的侵權訴訟，並包括蓄意侵權（willful infringement）訴狀。Morris則向地院提起抗辯懈怠與衡平禁反言（affirmative defenses of laches and equitable estoppel）的簡易判決請願。地院同意此簡易判決（第一回）。John Bean於是上訴CAFC（第一回），CAFC否決地院判決、發回重審。
Morris在地院階段又提起另一建議判決請願，議題是：根據公平中介權與審查懈怠等理由，要求法院禁止John Bean提起侵權訴訟。這次，地院否決有關審查懈怠請願，因為prosecution laches適用在專利領證之前，不適用本案；而部分同意有關「公平中介權」的請願（第二回）。
關於「公平中介權（equitable intervening rights）」，當一方被告侵害重新領證的專利時（本案系爭專利為再審查後重新領證，這類重新領證專利範圍可能有變化），可以提起公平中介權的抗辯。35 U.S.C. § 252: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/252。一旦法院同意被告以公平中介權抗辯時，被告可以製造、販售、使用與在系爭專利重新領證前的發明一樣的產品，領證後也能繼續。
其中，地院同意被告公平中介權抗辯的幾個判斷因子：
(1) whether substantial preparation was made by
the infringer before the reissue;
(2) whether the infringer continued manufacturing
before reissue on advice of its patent counsel;
(3) whether there were existing orders or contracts;
(4) whether non-infringing goods can be manufactured from the inventory used to manufacture the
infringing product and the cost of conversion;
(5) whether there is a long period of sales and operations before the patent reissued from which no
damages can be assessed; and
(6) whether the infringer made profits sufficient to
recoup its investment.
(1)是否在重新領證前被告已有實質預備？
(2)是否被告是基於專利代理人建議而於系爭專利重新領證前製造侵權物？
(3)是否有任何指令或合約？
(4)是否庫存中非侵權物用以製造侵權物，以及有費用轉移？
(5)在專利重新領證前是否有長期販售與運作？這部分沒有損害賠償。
(6)是否侵權者的利潤可以回收其投資？
看來，Morris符合以上幾點因子，且地院還判決原告John Bean惡意（bad faith）地沒有回應多年前Morris提出的專利無效資訊，並讓Morris製造相關產品，多年後才自己提出再審查程序（為了訴訟），這是形成公平中介權議題的主要理由。地院同意被告中平中介權的請願！
案件進入CAFC（第二回）。
CAFC審理地院判定公平中介權是否有權力濫用的問題，因為公平中介權涉及裁量權，可能被濫用。專利權人John Bean自然是捍衛自己的訴訟權，認為地院錯誤地裁量其公平中介權，並錯誤地忽視其實Morris已經回收其成本，還根據前例Plastic Container（Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc., 607 F.2d 885 (10th Cir.
1979)），主張以保護投資的角度看，僅能算到補償（recoupment），因此認為Morris蓄意侵權，而不能以公平中介權抗辯。
審理本案Morris是否可以公平中介權抗辯，CAFC先澄清前例Plastic Container並沒有如John Bean"在10年後"才付諸司法，因此該案判定被告侵權時，能補償到其投資範圍（如設備、原物料），但不能允許在未經授權下繼續侵權行為。（重要）
因此，CAFC同意Morris的公平中介權抗辯（"Morris was entitled to an
affirmative defense of equitable intervening rights"），判定Morris可以在合理的範圍下有條件或無條件地繼續製造、使用與販售侵權物（或方法），然而，判斷是否有資格主張公平中介權的分析應廣於簡單判定是否可以主張「可補償投資」的中介權。本案判定John Bean敗訴主要原因之一就是他的Bad Faith。
35 U.S.C. § 252
"The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, and every reissued patent shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent.
A reissued patent shall not abridge or affect the right of any person or that person’s successors in business who, prior to the grant of a reissue, made, purchased, offered to sell, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by the reissued patent, to continue the use of, to offer to sell, or to sell to others to be used, offered for sale, or sold, the specific thing so made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported unless the making, using, offering for sale, or selling of such thing infringes a valid claim of the reissued patent which was in the original patent. The court before which such matter is in question may provide for the continued manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of the thing made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported as specified, or for the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in the United States of which substantial preparation was made before the grant of the reissue, and the court may also provide for the continued practice of any process patented by the reissue that is practiced, or for the practice of which substantial preparation was made, before the grant of the reissue, to the extent and under such terms as the court deems equitable for the protection of investments made or business commenced before the grant of the reissue."
my two cents:
本篇討論議題主要是政府（司法）通過一些機制（如equitable intervening rights、法律追溯期、先使用權、不當訴訟行為、行政程序時限等）避免一些專利權人通過「養案（養對手）」的方式從中獲取利益。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1090.OPINION.2-19-2021_1736234.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/7e3x25afxl91g8g8yxp1gs138lc6khz9）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言