常見的用語"location"與"computer"卻有不同的解釋 - Traxcell Technologies v. Nokia (Fed. Cir. 2021)

本篇討論一個老議題：歷史禁反言，即便是如此普通一般的"location"與"computer"都產生"意外"的解釋，這挑戰了我們撰寫專利範圍與答辯的力道。

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
被告/被上訴人：NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, FKA NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS US LLC
系爭專利：US8,977,284, US9,510,320, US9,642,024
判決日：October 12, 2021

案件緣起專利權人Traxcell對Nokia提起侵權訴訟，系爭專利關於自我優化的無線網路技術（簡介如下），在解釋專利範圍與探索程序之後，地院在簡易判決中判定Nokia侵權不成立，Traxcell上訴CAFC。

系爭專利有共同的優先權案，列舉系爭專利US8,977,284（判決也引用'320案Claim 4），'284案關於提供地理位置動態資料給多個無線裝置的裝置，而所描述的無線網路系統中以一電腦執行軟體：定位無線網路中的無線裝置（如手機）、儲存各無線裝置的效能資料，無線網路系統提出一個無線電塔（如基地台），用於接收射頻訊號，並傳送射頻訊號到各無線裝置，使得所述電腦根據這些訊號得出的效能資料建立如何運作。這也就反映現今基地台與手機之間的運作，會依照手機的位置輸送射頻訊號，以優化通訊功能。

Claim 1 of '284案：

1. A wireless network comprising:

a) at least two wireless devices, each said wireless device communicating via radio frequency signals;

b) a first computer programmed to perform the steps of:

1) locating at least one said wireless device on said wireless network and referencing performance of said at least one wireless device with wireless network known parameters,

2) routinely storing performance data and a corresponding location for said at least one wireless device in a memory;

c) a radio tower adapted to receive radio frequency signals from, and transmit radio frequency signals to said at least one wireless device; wherein said first computer further includes means for receiving said performance data and suggest corrective actions obtained from a list of possible causes for said radio tower based upon the performance data and the corresponding location associated with said at least one wireless device;

d) wherein said radio tower generates an error code based upon operation of said at least one wireless device; and

e) wherein said first computer is further programmed to,

1) receive said error code from said radio tower, and,

2) selectively suggest a corrective action of said radio frequency signals of said radio tower in order to restrict processing of radio frequency signals from at least one of said at least two wireless devices based upon said error code, and, whereby said first computer suggests said corrective action in order to improve communication with at least one said wireless device.

Claim 4 of '320案，此項關於管理無線射頻網路的方法，方法描述的內容如上述系統項描述相近。

4. A method of managing a wireless radio-frequency (RF) network, the method comprising:

coupling in communication, at least one radio-frequency transceiver and an associated at least one antenna to which the radio-frequency transceiver is coupled to at least one mobile wireless communication device;

at a first computer coupled to the at least one radio-frequency transceiver, locating the at least one mobile wireless device according to the radio-frequency communications and generating an indication of a location of the at least one mobile wireless device;

at the first computer, receiving and storing performance data of connections between the at least one mobile wireless device and the radio-frequency transceiver along with the indication of location;

at the first computer storing updated performance data and an updated indication of location of the at least one mobile wireless device while the mobile wireless device is communicating with the at least one radio-frequency transceiver;

referencing the performance data to expected performance data;

determining at least one suggested corrective action in conformity with differences between the performance data and expected performance data in conjunction with the indication of location;

coupling a second computer in communication with the first computer;

at the first computer, responsive to a communication from the at least one mobile wireless communication device, setting a no access flag within a memory of the first computer;

providing access from the first computer to the indication of location to the second computer if the no access flag is reset; and

the first computer denying access to the indication of location to the second computer if the no access flag is set.

關於侵權議題，被告侵權產品為Nokia的Eden-NET，其中通過軟體模組調整無線網路，例如可以收集各無線裝置（如手機）的效能，能自動重新啟動故障的基地台，並識別所漏失的功率，也就是可以自我優化的網路設備。

對於專利侵權判定，首先根據專利範圍解釋，關鍵用語有"location"、"computer"等，經解釋專利範圍後，判定上述'284的Claim 1不明確。Traxcell通過修正想要修正不明確的問題。

不論如何，在簡易判決中，地院判定被告侵權物Eden-NET調整網路的依據並未關於"location"這個資訊，也沒有被系爭專利中"computer"這個元件讀入，地院判定侵權不成立。

Traxcell上訴CAFC。

案件爭議就在上述兩個技術用語："location"與"computer"。

CAFC階段：

LOCATION:

解釋專利範圍，主要是依據內部證據，如說明書本身，還有審查期間的答辯歷史，法院判定所述"location"（位置）不僅是「網格中的位置（a position in a grid pattern）」，因為專利權人在專利答辯過程中曾經拋棄（disclaim）網格中的位置的解釋。

在眾多案例指出，引用案例如Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2003)，在審查過程曾經拋棄的範圍不能在取回，例如用來區隔先前技術的答辯理由，於是，所述"location"就不能用其字面上的意思來解釋。

編按，顯見被告侵權物Eden-NET採用的是"grid pattern"，但系爭專利於審查過程已經拋棄這個解釋範圍。

根據Nokia專家解釋，被告侵權物自基地台收集KPI（關鍵效能指標），而這個指標是50公尺見方的bin的效能指標，而這個效能指標卻非針對手機（系爭專利收集無線裝置（手機）的效能），所述"grid"指的是地理範圍，不是手機的位置。

根據系爭專利範圍，包括附屬項的描述，指出"location"都是無線裝置/移動裝置的位置，因此與被告侵權物收集KPI的相關"grid pattern"不同，但是否"location"是"Eden-NET所取得的KPI"的一部分？這時考量的是，KPI並未綁定特定手機，也就是所收集的效能資訊是一個區域的效能，也是"grid"的解釋範圍，如此，判定被告侵權物並未使用系爭專利的"location"。

COMPUTER:

系爭專利範圍中的"computer"能執行一些功能，如定位無線裝置、儲存效能資料、接收錯誤碼，以及選擇建議更正的動作等。

以上"computer"解釋很一般，沒有特殊之處，不過，專利請求項撰寫時，會依照前述基礎的規則，第一次提到computer，會寫"a computer"，之後提到computer，就寫"the computer"，使得解釋時就是"同一台電腦"，看來很正常，不過遇到訴訟就會是個爭議。就文字表面意思而言，所述"computer"是單一部電腦，這個解釋是因為專利範圍中描述"a computer"執行一個功能，接著又寫"the computer"執行其他功能，使得解釋"這一個"電腦執行了以上所說的功能。

這看來正常的撰寫規則則可能限縮了專利範圍，不過這個嚴重的指控是否就這樣？還好，法院仍參考其他證據才確定此解釋。

解釋過程仍會參考審查歷史，系爭專利審查歷史曾經面對先前技術"Anderson"使用了多台電腦，而系爭專利僅使用"一台電腦"，說明不同於先前技術需要其他的設備。這個專利審查歷史（如下）證明系爭專利強調了僅使用一台電腦，不同於先前技術需要第二台電腦執行其他功能。

如此，CAFC判決確定了地院的判決。

"We also agree with the district court that prosecution history estoppel forecloses Traxcell’s alternative multiple computer infringement theory."

"We agree with the district court that Traxcell clearly and unmistakably surrendered multiple-computer equivalents during prosecution and that a competitor would reasonably believe those equivalents to be fair game. Traxcell cannot reclaim that lost territory now."

my two cents:

看來，請求項表面文字並非能夠理解專利範圍，還要從答辯歷史等證據中確定範圍，被告Nokia很厲害地從看來是如此普通的用語"location"與"computer"找到不同的解釋，都是因為專利審查答辯的disclaimer造成的歷史estoppel。

我認為，撰寫專利範圍時，無法避免地會使用"a computer"，然而這不會是數量的限制，但是接下來會用"the computer"，恐怕會產生解釋為"同一台電腦"的結果，其實本篇判決並非這樣想，而是又參考了專利答辯歷史才確立是「同一個單一電腦」，不過我們仍要小心。

答辯歷史產生的禁反言不容易避免，也不容易知道會在將來的訴訟產生爭議，而請求項用語則可盡力避免，例如我的後見之明：使用"at least one computer", "one or more computer"，或是在說明書實施例描述各種可能，避免被解釋為單一電腦。其實"電腦/計算機/computer"應該是很廣的用語，一般來說，除非發明人自我限縮，我認為應該包括電腦主機、手機、工作站、網格運算、叢集、伺服器等，依照實際發明而定，但撰寫專利範圍仍可盡力避免以後不當解釋。

CAFC判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1440.OPINION.10-12-2021_1847122.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/41kb0re91gqk74q3tor3y45umdhv2jvf）

資訊參考：https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/10/disclaimer-prosecution-recaptured.html

Ron