2021年4月22日 星期四

被告產品沒有的功能,就不能均等讀入 - Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

案件資訊:
原告/交叉上訴人:OLAF SOOT DESIGN, LLC
被告/上訴人:DAKTRONICS, INC
系爭專利:US6,520,485
判決日:January 7, 2021

本案緣起Olaf Sööt Design, LLC (“OSD”)對Daktronics提出侵權告訴,主張被告侵害系爭專利'485的Claim 27專利權,地方法院陪審團判定被告侵權產品(Vortek)適用均等論(doctrine of equivalents)侵權成立,但蓄意侵權不成立,被告提出請願,主張被告侵權產品對系爭專利中一個元件"h"不符合文義讀取,也不適用均等論,但地院駁回請願。

雙方都上訴,被告上訴CAFC主張侵權不成立,原告主張被告蓄意侵權,以及主張本案符合例外條件而應繳付原告律師費。

系爭專利'485關於升降物品的懸吊系統(fly system),其中結構特徵整理起來,如Claim 27所描述的,有支架40、基底構件30、在基底夠架上轉動設置的長形鼓輪11,以及相關手段、在基底構件30上滑動裝設支架40的手段,以及,當有物體移入相應上下位置時,且有纜線從鼓輪上解開或纏繞時,其中中空輪與中空鼓輪經尺寸調整可讓螺桿移入中空輪,以讓中空鼓輪接收螺桿("h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position.")。


27. A motorized fly system winch, drum and carriage combination for raising and lowering an object, comprising:
a) a carriage,
b) a base member having first and second end portions,
c) an elongated hollow drum having cable grooves and having a longitudinal axis and rotatably mounted on the base member and a cable for simultaneously winding and unwinding the cable on or off the drum grooves when the drum is rotated, said cable passing from the outside of the drum directly or via a sheave to the object such that rotation of the drum causes the object to move up and down,
d) first means for slideably mounting the base member to the carriage,
e) said drum having at a first end a hollow hub rotatably journalled at the first end portion of the base member,
f) second means for rotating the drum relative to the base member such that the base member with its drum and the carriage can move with respect to each other in synchronism with the rotation of the drum to control the cable run to the object,
g) said second means comprising an elongated screw having a first end non-rotatably mounted to the carriage and a second end connected to the drum and axially aligned with the hollow hub and the hollow drum, said screw extending mainly outside of the hollow drum when the cable is wound up on or unwound from the drum and the object is in its respective up or down position,
h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position.

下圖描述被告侵權產品的中空輪與、螺桿之間的結構關係。

主要爭議在解釋Claim 27的'h'元件。

法官引用案例「O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.」,其中當有訴訟一方提起有關解釋專利範圍的爭議時,法院有責任解決,在本案地院審判中,法院並未在陪審團判決前解釋專利範圍,即不符O2 Micro意旨。更者,法院還在陪審團判決前還未解釋專利範圍(解釋專利範圍的責任在法院)就駁回被告提起不侵權請願(JMOL of noninfringement),也就是法院在這個程序上有違背前例,也不當地提交未處理爭議的專利範圍解釋給陪審團的問題。

案件到CAFC,法官表示解釋範圍的最佳時機應該是在地方法院,但此時,因為雙方都提出爭議,CAFC自行解釋專利範圍,依循的是案例「Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)」所指示應由相關領域一般技術人員依照請求項文字、說明書內容,以一般與常規的意思解釋專利範圍用語也不必要將說明書的限制讀入專利範圍中。本案中,在系爭專利Claim 27元件'h'中出現的"hollow hub"與"hollow drum"為不同的元件。

h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position.

參考報導:合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html


於是,法院就根據以上原則解釋元件'h'的專利範圍,其中,根據請求項字面意思,以及說明書內容,顯然"hollow hub"與"hollow drum"為分開的兩個元件。

根據這個解釋,被告產品Vortek字義上沒有侵權,因為Vortek產品中的「hollow drum」(可參考以上截圖)並不能將螺桿收進。

關於「均等論」,被告侵權產品Vortek的drum(鼓輪)不能收進螺桿,也沒有其他等效的功能,如此,因為不能不當地刪去系爭專利範圍中有關中空鼓輪可以在有纜線纏繞或解開時收進螺桿的限制使得不能以均等論將此功能讀到被告侵權產品不能達成的功能上


如此可知,就法院解釋均等論來看,至少功能上也要比到,也不能不當地從專利範圍刪掉特定元件,而不是字面上都有,雖有些差異,好像可以讀入就讀入。

這裡提到一個「全要件原則」,如果將均等論應用在被告侵權產品(或流程)不符合整個專利範圍的限制,就不適用均等論!


可參考過去筆記:侵權比對分析筆記(https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/09/blog-post_12.html),其中我國侵害鑑定流程顯示,想要適用均等論,前提示,要先符合「全要件原則」。

根據以上論述,CAFC親自"重新"審理侵權案,侵權不成立。

my two cents:
本篇學到一件事,若要適用均等論,需要先符合全要件原則,如果被告產品就沒有專利範圍中描述的其中之一元件或功能,均等論就不適用!


Ron

沒有留言: