本篇判決短短的，適合工作有點忙的人來讀，我也是，但是卻花了更多時間來看，還包括引用的一些案例，其實...提供的資訊很經典、很重要。
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：ONE-E-WAY, INC.
被告/被上訴人：APPLE INC.
系爭專利：US10,129,627、US10,468,047
判決日期：August 14, 2023
本案緣起One-E-Way向Apple提出侵權告訴，Apple提出"不侵權"的簡易判決請願，理由是被告侵權產品為使用藍牙通訊，且沒有使用「unique user code」，因為其中採用的碼是連結裝置，而非使用者。One-E-Way答覆表示「unique user code」是透過裝置的操作連結到使用者，因此侵權應成立。
地方法院解釋專利範圍中的「"unique user code"」是連結到裝置的使用者，而不是裝置本身，地方法院認為Apple產品使用藍牙配對，"與使用者無關"，並沒有使用"unique user code"，因此判決侵權不成立。
One-E-Way提起上訴。
系爭專利關於一種無線數位音樂系統，系統包括具有收發器與耳機的可攜式音源，其中音源接收器使用fuzzy logic（模糊邏輯）以加強數位訊號處理，並可以CDMA（分碼多重存取）通訊技術傳遞音訊。依照專利說明書的描述，系統由接收器與傳送器（專利範圍分為兩個相互搭配的部分），接收端就是一個整合音訊處理與通訊電路的耳機。
（編按，通篇說明書都使用「headphone」，字面上意思應是頭戴式耳機，而不是入耳式的earphone，不過，依照專利範圍解釋原則，請求項內容中的技術特徵沒有特別僅針對其中一種，解釋範圍應仍有其可擴大的空間，並且本案專利範圍沒有限制。）
'627案claim 1描述「接收器」，提出的無線數位音訊展頻接收器，接收器包括展頻訊號的轉換模組、數位類比轉換器與揚聲器，接收器使用獨立CDMA通訊以使用唯一使用者碼（unique user code）與傳送端進行訊號傳輸。
1. A wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver, capable of mobile operation, configured to receive a unique user code and a high quality audio signal representation with a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz from a digital audio spread spectrum transmitter, said audio signal representation representative of audio from a portable audio source, said digital audio spread spectrum receiver operative to communicate wirelessly with said digital audio spread spectrum transmitter, said digital audio spread spectrum receiver comprising:
a direct conversion module configured to receive wireless spread spectrum signal transmissions representative of the unique user code and the high quality audio signal representation, wherein the received transmissions are encoded to reduce intersymbol interference, wherein the wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver is capable of processing the high quality audio signal having a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz;
a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) configured to generate an audio output from said receiver audio signal representation; and
a speaker configured to reproduce said generated audio output, wherein said reproduction does not include audible audio content originating from any transmitted audio signals in the wireless digital audio spread spectrum transmitter spectrum that do not originate from said digital audio spread spectrum transmitter;
wherein the wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver is configured to use independent code division multiple access communication and to use the received unique user code to communicate with only said wireless digital audio spread spectrum transmitter for the duration of a wireless connection; and
wherein the wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver is further configured to:
demodulate a received modulated transmission, and
generate a demodulated signal based on the received modulated transmission by performing at least one of a plurality of demodulations, wherein the plurality of demodulations includes a differential phase shift keying (DPSK) demodulation and also includes a non-DPSK demodulation.
'627案claim 5描述「傳送端」，無線數位音訊展頻傳送器，傳送器主要包括音訊編碼器，執行音訊調變，以產生傳送到接收端的調變訊號。
5. A wireless digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter operatively coupled to a portable audio player and configured to transmit a unique user code and a representation of an audio signal with a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 Khz, wherein said digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter is configured to wirelessly communicate with a digital audio spread spectrum receiver and is configured to be moved in any direction during operation, said wireless digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter comprising:
an encoder operative to encode a first representation of an audio signal to reduce intersymbol interference associated with a transmitted representation of the audio signal, said encoder configured to process signals in the frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz for representation in said first representation of an audio signal;
wherein the wireless digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter is further configured to perform at least one of a plurality of modulations on the first representation of the audio signal and generate a modulated signal based on the performance of the plurality of modulations, wherein the plurality of modulations includes a differential phase shift keying (DPSK) modulation and a non-DPSK modulation;
wherein said plurality of modulations are separate from the encoding and processing by the encoder; and
wherein the wireless digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter is further configured to use the modulated signal and to use independent code division multiple access communication to wirelessly transmit a transmitted representation of the audio signal, and wherein the transmitted unique user code distinguishes the transmitted representation of the audio signal from other transmitted audio signals in the spread spectrum transmitter spectrum, said other transmitted audio signals not originating from said wireless digital coded audio spread spectrum transmitter.
由以上內容可知，本案爭議涉及專利範圍中「unique user code」的解釋。
------------------------
在此一提的是，法院引用2015年最高法院判例"Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325 (2015)"，本案在本部落格中多次引用，其中最高法院主要要傳達的解釋專利範圍原則是：
"最高法院在案例"Teva v. Sandoz"中裁決對於針對地方法院判決有關"外部證據"解釋專利範圍的上訴程序中，理應“給予尊重（"should be given deference on appeal"）”，就是應該要採用。不過其他非關此類的專利範圍解釋仍要重新審理。"
在本案是涉及「內部證據」，CAFC引用"Teva v. Sandoz"目的是要說明，當地方法院審理的證據僅有專利內部證據時，法官判決時應僅針對法律議題，而解釋專利範圍就是法律議題。
------------------------
雙方爭議「unique user code」的解釋，按照字面解釋（坦白而普通的意思（plain and ordinary meaning）），到底所述的"code"是連結到使用者或是裝置？
One-E-Way認為地院以其他額外的資訊過度狹窄地解釋「unique user code」，而Apple認為地院正確地以其表面意思解釋「unique user code」。
CAFC同意地方法院的解釋，這個用語「unique user code」是連結到裝置的使用者（"associated with one user of a device(s)"），而不是裝置本身。
CAFC這樣的判定是因為本案系爭專利範圍給予很明白且慣用的意思，也是依照2005年CAFC判例「Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)」的解釋原則。可參考：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）。
因此，通過說明書（原則一）的描述，很容易地找到一句話："The unique user code generated is specifically associated with one wireless digital audio system user, and it is the only code recognized by the battery powered headphone receiver 50 operated by a particular user."，明白地支持地方法院的解釋。
再參考專利答辯歷史（prosecution history，原則二），系爭專利曾經為了要克服先前技術而區隔使用者碼（user code）與裝置碼（device code），顯示答辯意見形成disclaimer，也是支持本案地方法院的解釋。
CAFC判決：因為Apple產品採用藍牙配對，並沒有使用連結到使用者的碼，因此同意地院判決，侵權成立。
my two cents:
本案理解是很簡單，就是一字之差"user code"，字面上已經很難擴大解釋，或是已經在法官腦袋裡形成印象，不容易推翻。當然，審查歷史也是證明這個"user code"的意思。看似有點嚴格，僅user/device之差，也是因為先前技術的阻礙產生限縮範圍的必要。而這件專利對於一些一定要綁住使用者的裝置而言，應該還是具有威脅的。
CAFC判決文：https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2020.OPINION.8-14-2023_2173083.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/zznff6h9fzk0jk1taa8qncvy487gr5nb）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言