Posner Dismissed Apple-Moto Lawsuit

Posner法官於美國時間6月22日正式駁回了Apple與Motorola的專利訴訟。他之前就已經打算駁回這個案子，不過後來還是針對是否核發禁制令的部份，給了兩造言詞陳述意見的機會。很明顯雙方陳述的意見，並沒有改變Posner法官的想法。

法官駁回這個訴訟的原因，是他認為雙方就其損害賠償與禁制令的主張都沒有提出足夠的證據。就專利訴訟我還真的是第一次看到打成這樣的。

關於損害賠償，Apple在提出了如下的論點："關於任何的侵權，即使沒有可衡量的損害賠償，也應該是個值得得到判決的損害 (any act of infringement, even if it gives rise to no measurable damages, is an injury entitling it to a judgment.) (請見判決文第9頁)"。這點應該是跟英美侵權法上的侵權行為與損害賠償的基本概念有關，超出我的能力範圍之外。不過法官提到專利侵權如果不能證明損害，有可能可以類比為 "無害的穿過你家草皮" 這類的案件，並獲判 nominal damages：

A patent is property too, and a suit to establish the validity or scope of a patent by means of a suit against an alleged infringer would be analogous to a “harmless trespass” suit, ... and could therefore justify an award of nominal damages if no injury were proved.

不過如果沒有損害，法官認為聯邦法院就nominal damages沒有管轄權 (判決文第10頁中間)：

I strongly doubt ... that a patentee can sue for nominal damages, at least not in a federal court given the meaning that the Supreme Court has given to the terms “Cases” and “Controversies” in Article III of the Constitution. Without an actual or prospective tangible injury, a federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.

這個判決文還有很多有趣的地方可以討論。比如關於Motorola向Apple請求售價2.25%的這個數字，連Motorola自己的律師都擺明說 "今天我沒法證明2.25%是個正確的數字" (判決文第17頁最下面到第18頁最上面)：

But the ultimate result would have to be, as a result of all the litigations, that Apple would pay Motorola whatever the standards-essential license negotiated fee would be.We say it’s 2.25 percent, but I'm not going to be able to prove to you that that’s the right number today.”

這實在是很妙。

我個人覺得法官好像不太喜歡Apple，有些話講的很酸。比如在第23頁，法官說Apple主張Motorola藉由侵權獲利，但儘管其有很多資源跟超棒的法律團隊，還用了三家事務所，卻仍然未能作到可被接受的最低標準 ... 也許是廚師太多搞砸了一鍋菜，或是這個侵權根本沒有剝奪Apple的獲利......：

Apple claims that Motorola profited from infringement by incorporating the desirable features of Apple’s patented technology into its own devices without either paying a royalty for a license to use the patents or incurring the cost of inventing around them. Apple has never contended that these benefits to Motorola of infringement cannot be quantified. It merely has failed, despite its vast resources and superb legal team, to do so in a minimally acceptable manner—failed whether because of mistakes in trial preparation (which even the best lawyers can make), or because too many cooks spoil the stew (Apple is represented by three law firms in this litigation), or maybe because the infringements did not deprive Apple of any profits (I’ll come back to this counterintuitive point).

其它部份有興趣者就自己看原文吧。想必Apple應該會上訴，藉時再看上訴法院怎麼說了。