案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人/專利權人：LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC, VAPOROUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
被告/上訴人：HENRY CHUNG
系爭專利：US9,750,284
判決日：September 1, 2021
本案緣起專利權人向被告Chung提起侵權告訴，地方法院作出侵權成立以及86萬美元賠償的判決，Chung上訴CAFC，議題除了侵權的問題外，還包括如何計算損害賠償的問題。
相關法條為35 U.S.C. § 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice
(a)Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the number of the patent, or by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.” together with an address of a posting on the Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address, that associates the patented article with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.
...
系爭專利'284關於個人噴霧器 （實際上是電子菸）：
Claim 1:
1. A personal vaporizer, comprising:
a tank module comprising a fluid chamber and a vapor passage extending through the fluid chamber, the fluid chamber configured to contain a vaporizing solution;
an atomizer module comprising a bowl having an upper edge and an air aperture, a heating element arranged in or adjacent the bowl, the bowl configured to accept vaporizing solution received from the fluid chamber;
a check valve comprising an insulator housing, a conductive shell inside the insulator housing, and a sealing mechanism inside the conductive shell, the conductive shell having an air inlet and an air outlet, an intake air flow path defined through the conductive shell from the air inlet to the air outlet, the sealing mechanism providing a seal inside the conductive shell, the seal interposed in the intake air flow path, the check valve arranged so that that the air outlet communicates with the bowl air aperture and the conductive shell is electrically connected to the heating element; and
a battery assembly, the heating element connectable to the battery assembly through the check valve so that actuation of the battery delivers electrical energy to the heating element, causing the heating element to heat and vaporize the vaporizing solution;
wherein the bowl has a first wire hole and a second wire hole extending through a bottom wall of the bowl and a channel extending transversely from the second wire hole.
在地院審理期間，被告Chung主張原告Lubby並不符合35 U.S.C. § 287專利標示的規定，但並未影響判決，陪審團裁定Chung直接侵權成立，以及裁定86萬美元損害賠償，Chung在地院程序中不斷地提出抗辯，都被否決，因此上訴CAFC。
上訴議題雖質疑地院直接侵權的判決，但是因為證據不足證明地院有濫權裁定的問題。本篇議題就是第二個爭議：陪審團裁定的損害賠償金額計算是否符合35 U.S.C. § 287專利標示與告知的規定。
根據35 U.S.C. § 287規定，專利權人，若有製造或販售（包括進口、要約）專利物品必須在專利物品上標示專利資訊，或是告知侵權者相關專利權以能主張損害賠償，反之，若沒有達成告知義務，就不能主張損害賠償，直到告知為止。
本案中，專利權人Lubby先聲奪人，主張Chung並沒有證明銷售物品是他相信未專利標示的物品。然而，法律是規定專利權人有責任證明其符合專利標示與告知的規定，法律的規定是僅要求被告侵權者最低的要求，僅需針對專利權人是否有告知被授權人販賣了未專利標示所宣稱被侵權的商品提出證明。
CAFC顯然同意Chung已經符合其最低舉證要求，也就是Chung證明宣稱被侵權的商品在其網頁上並未標示專利號碼，因此這個標示與告知的責任影響了損害賠償的計算。
CAFC則判定，在原告提出侵權告訴的時間就是所述告知的時間點：January 26, 2018（“Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute . . . notice.”）。原告主張被告所未告知在專利核准領證時，但根據287(a)的規定，所述告知(notice)是基於「侵權」的通知，而非僅基於專利的存在。
因此，原告主張的損害賠償因為相關被侵權商品並未專利標示而無法主張更早的時間點，使得CAFC裁決損害賠償計算應該從原告提起侵權訴訟開始計算。
CAFC教我們如何主張侵權賠償：根據35 U.S.C. § 287(a)規定的真實告知（actual notice），專利權人應告知疑似侵權者相關專利的資訊，以及相關侵權行為，專利權人應提出「減少侵權」的提議，如接受授權、停止侵權行為或其他。而相關法律的規定並非是被告是否知道有侵權任何專利，而是規範專利權人要符合告知義務。
其實最後都是「證據」的問題，即便原告極力證明在更早的時間被告「已經被告知」侵權，但證據始終無法讓CAFC法官認同，侵權賠償計算並不是基於被告是否知道有相關專利，如專利公告時。
CAFC判決：同意地院陪審團判決侵權成立的決定，但如本案主要議題，但判定損害賠償的時間點有誤，應該基於被告Chung被告知的時間，因此這部分發回地院重新計算侵權物品的數量，以合理計算損害賠償金額。
my two cents:
閱讀本案判決時，有個特別的地方是，被告其實在某個時間點"有被告知不能侵權"的信息，這點在判決文後Newman法官提到，雙方是有合作的，還簽有合約，不過是「保密與不揭露合約」，因此應該是這個合約保護了本案被告。
侵權與否就看專利權，查是否被告侵權物落入專利範圍中，後續可能還會有授權金額的談判；但損害賠償的計算則是針對「實際損害」的計算，因此原告(或被授權人)本身要提出宣稱被侵權的產品，以及有告知被告的義務，包括專利標示。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2286.OPINION.9-1-2021_1827960.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/dqijlil2d2gegddlnp9sr4h5dizya483）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言