本篇討論前一篇（ ABC Corp. I v. Schedule "A" (Fed. Cir. 2022)）討論設計專利侵權案例中對於"禁制令"發出的引用案例 - "International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004)"。
案件資訊：
原告/專利權人：International Rectifier Corporation ("IR")
侵權被告：IXYS Corporation ("IXYS")
系爭專利：US6,476,481
判決日：Oct 20, 2004
系爭專利獲准當天，原告IR對被告IXYS提出侵權告訴，IXYS並沒有否認侵權，而是去修改被告侵權產品，間接承認原本的半導體元件設計有侵權的問題，IXYS反擊的重點是質疑原告提出的永久禁制令（permanent injunction）請求。地方法院判決是同意原告IR請求，發出永久禁制令的簡易判決。（根據判決書提到IR同時提起其他9件訴訟，推論系爭專利算是有點分量）
系爭專利US6,476,481關於可加強電容量的MOSFET半導體元件。
1. A semiconductor device of increased current capacity without an increased size; said semiconductor device comprising a semiconductor device die; a plurality of bonding wires; a die mounting pad and a plurality of parallel spaced external conductors; at least one of said parallel spaced external conductors having a first bond wire post at one end thereof; the bottom of said die being fixed to the top surface of said die mounting pad; a plurality of said bonding wires being bonded at one end thereof to the top surface of said die and at the other end thereof to said bond wire post; a plastic housing for enclosing said die; said plurality of spaced conductors extending from the interior of said plastic housing, through a side wall of said housing to the exterior of said housing; the laterally outermost two of said plurality of spaced external conductors being reentrantly bent and penetrating said side wall of said housing so that said laterally outermost two conductors will have a greater spacing at said side wall than at their free ends thereby increasing the creepage distance along the surface of said side wall.
地方法院階段，特別的是，IXYS並未否認原本的產品侵害了系爭專利的範圍，但是提出改良版，原告IR也沒有因此修改訴狀而針對改良後的被告侵權產品，IXYS也撤回對IR系爭專利提出無效與不可執行（unenforceable）主張權利的辯護主張。
如此，原告IR在其訴訟主張中，因為IXYS承認的侵權產品為少量，IR表示願意對少量侵權行為放棄蓄意侵權或是損害賠償的主張，僅請求地院作出侵權判決，但是其中有個陷阱，伴隨著一個永久禁制令的命令：(1)系爭專利有效，而可執行；(2)IXYS特定數量的產品侵權成立；(3)IXYS相關人員被通知禁令。
IXYS提出限制性的反對意見（limited opposition），反對上述禁制令可以針對未來的侵權行為，表示禁制令涵蓋的範圍過廣，違反Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure。
Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders（https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65）
...
(d) Contents and Scope of Every Injunction and Restraining Order.（禁制令的內容）
(1) Contents. Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:
(A) state the reasons why it issued;（應說明為何發出禁制令）
(B) state its terms specifically; and（應明確指出禁制的項目）
(C) describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.（以合理的細節描述被禁的行為或被要求的行為）
(2) Persons Bound.
The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise: (A) the parties; (B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
（以下截圖是2004年判決摘錄的）
IXYS主張禁制令應僅針對最初被告的產品，並認為，如果IR認為經過修改的設計仍侵權，應該提起另一侵權訴訟，IXYS也保留提起不侵權主張、系爭專利無效以及無法執行的反訴權利。
但地方法院否決IXYS主張，並對IXYS產品（不分原本或是修改後的）發出永久禁制令。
CAFC階段：
根據Rule 65(d)，CAFC的態度是，此法條就是要避免過廣的永久禁制令（永遠被禁！），特別是避免涵蓋到"未來"侵權的行為。
對於原告IR而言，認為禁制令中沒有必要明確用文字限制侵權的裝置，認為聯邦法條已經解釋禁制令的限制。但就CAFC而言，這樣的禁制令是有瑕疵並違反Rule 65(d)，認為地院發出禁制令並不符合"聯邦民事訴訟規則（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure）Rule 65(d)"規定，CAFC否決地院發出的永久禁制令，發回重審要求地院針對適當的範圍發出禁制令。
判決文：https://casetext.com/case/international-rectifier-corp-v-ixys-corp
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言