2021年6月8日 星期二

專利範圍解釋就是一種文字遊戲,特別是有條件的時候 - Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2007)

Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2007)

(編按,本篇是源自之前報導(條件式專利範圍(conditional limitations)討論)的後續報導,因為其中案例多少都提到這件有利使用條件式專利範圍的專利權人(原告)的案例)

原告/被上訴人:CYBERSETTLE, INC.
被告/上訴人:NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM, INC. (NAF)
系爭專利:US6,330,551
判決日:July 24, 2007

本案緣起專利權人Cybersettle對NAF提出侵權告訴,在交叉簡易判決請願(cross-motions)後,地方法院解釋專利範圍後判定NAF侵權成立。

NAF上訴CAFC,NAF主張地院錯誤解釋專利範圍,並主張侵權不成立。

系爭專利US6,330,551關於一種通過網站經網路實現自動化解決紛爭的電腦化爭議解決系統,例如保險公司與索賠人。

系爭專利Claim 1關於電腦執行爭議解決的方法,方法包括接收請求、和解協議、防止請求與和解協議之揭露、計算雙方差異、判斷差異是否落於預期的需求內,如果符合需求,就傳送給雙方表示已經解決;反之,如果差異不符合預期需求,就發出信息表示爭議未解決。
1. A computer executable method for dispute resolution, operative to control a computer and stored on at least one computer readable medium, the method when executed comprising:
a) receiving a plurality of demands from a first party for a claim;
b) receiving a plurality of settlement offers from a second party for the claim;
c) preventing disclosure of the demands to the second party, and preventing disclosure of the settlement offers to the first party;
d) calculating differences between the demands and the settlement offers in rounds, each of the differences being calculated in a round using one demand and one settlement offer, the one demand and the one settlement offer being unequal in value;
e) determining whether any of the differences fall within at least one predetermined criterion;
f) if any of the differences fall within the at least one predetermined criterion, transmitting a message to the first party and the second party that the claim is resolved; and
g) if the differences do not fall within the at least one predetermined criterion, transmitting a message that the claim has not been resolved.

另一爭議範圍Claim 27則是關於爭議解決方法,編按,寫法很厲害,描述的是Claim 1的應用。
27. A dispute resolution method for resolving a claim between two adverse parties in rounds, the method comprising:
testing a pair of non-equal values in one of at least two rounds, one value in the pair submitted by one of the two adverse parties for the claim; and
calculating a binding settlement payment of an amount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal values, when a settlement determination algorithm used in the testing is satisfied by the pair of the non-equal values.

針對地院解釋專利範圍(claim construction),被告NAF主張地院錯誤解釋專利範圍:(1) 系爭專利範圍要求限制在兩個或多個請求(demands)與和解要約(settlement offers),而不僅是接收多個請求與提供要約的能力;(2) 方法專利範圍只有在接收兩個或多個請求後比對請求與提供要約之後才會執行。這部分就是看如何解釋帶有條件式的專利範圍?

CAFC階段:

請求項中"plurality"意思是兩個或多個,因此CAFC不同意地院解釋系爭專利發明"可以"接收多個請求與要約提供的能力,而將"plurality"可以涵蓋"only one demand and one offer",因此同意NAF的第一個主張

就侵權判斷而言,當僅可以做到,但訴訟某方沒有執行專利範圍界定的方法就沒有侵害其權利("A party that does not perform a claimed step does not infringe a method claim merely because it is capable of doing so.")。

也就是說,若專利範圍中設有「條件」,即便被告一方有能力、可以執行後續動作,只要條件不滿足,後續動作就沒有必要執行,使得侵權也不見得會成立。

專利權人/原告Cybersettle主張說明書中記載的實施例支持沒有一定要有多個請求(demands)與要約(settlement offers),但雖然可以說明書記載內容來解釋專利範圍,申請專利範圍中的描述仍會排除那些不被涵蓋的實施例。

還有一重點,解釋專利範圍也會參考專利答辯過程的禁反言,經查,專利權人曾於審查階段增加並以"at least two"來克服審查委員根據先前技術的核駁意見,因此無法避免地,系爭專利範圍已經限制在"at least two demands and at least two settlement offers"。

CAFC同意NAF第一個主張

針對NAF提出的第二個主張,CAFC同意NAF解釋說除非請求(demand)與要約(offer)都接收,不會開始執行專利範圍中的比對與測試步驟,但是,並不是指在比對與測試開始之前就一定要完成接收的步驟。

這真是玩文字遊戲。

CAFC不同意NAF解釋專利範圍認為其中判斷差異(請求與要約之間的不同)與接收與比對所述請求與要約提供的步驟不能同時發生的主張,也就是系爭專利Claim 1並沒有要求只有在至少兩個請求與要約接收後才會去比對兩者之間的不同。

同時也參考了系爭專利說明書的記載,因此判定NAF的第二個主張不合理。

綜上所述,系爭專利範圍要求要接受至少兩個請求(demands)與至少兩個和解要約(settlement offers),而其餘步驟只要在接收到一個請求與要約就可以開始,因此發回地院要求以本次解釋專利範圍重審侵權成立的決定。

my two cents:
如果覺得需要進一步理解其中邏輯判斷,建議可參考原文。


Ron

沒有留言: