關於 SHIELD ACT 2013

2013年2月版的SHIELD 2013法案原文 (EFF Website)

針對Patent Troll的問題，美國國會眾議員Mr. DeFazio在2013年2月重新提出了其在2012年提過的SHIELD (Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013) 法案。這個2013年的版本跟2012年的版本很不一樣。如果您對SHIELD法案內容的認知還停留在那個問題很多的2012年版，那麼您可能要重新看一下了。

這個版本的重點，是定義了 "非patent troll" 的三種實體：

• 原始發明人，這包括原始的受讓人；
• 利用專利的人，即有實質投資以生產或銷售專利權所涵蓋的產品的人；以及
• 大學與技轉組織，即符合20 U.S.C. 1001第101條定義的實體，以及為這種實體的技術進行商業化的技術移轉組織。

如果不符合這三種實體的任何一種，那麼在專利訴訟中，主張專利無效或不侵權的當事人，就可以聲請法院裁定如果其勝訴，對造應負擔其律師費。此外，法院也應要求該對造提供擔保，金額由法院決定。

這個版本還是有很多問題。比如，所謂 “exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent”，由於理論上只有在美國製造或販賣的產品，才有被美國專利涵蓋的可能，所以一家公司如果買來一個在台灣、大陸與美國取得專利的專利家族，然後只在台灣與大陸製造或販賣相關產品，那麼它在美國主張專利權時，很可能會被認定為並非是利用專利的人 (他沒有在美國利用“美國”專利)。由於它也不是原始受讓人或大學技轉組織，它在美國就變成patent troll了。

然而，那個在美國的被告，可能在美國製造後，產品賣到大陸去與原告競爭。專利權人只因為沒有在美國製造與販賣，它在美國訴訟就必須押擔保金，並且在敗訴後負擔對方律師費。這似乎不太合理。

這邊所謂 “ exploitation”，在著名的美國關稅法第337條，也有類似的用語，而且之前還爭執過這個用語的意義 (比如這個案子，從第7頁開始)。所以 “ exploitation”應該如何解釋，值得注意。

此外，"非patent troll" 的三種實體似乎不包括研究機構，也不確定是否包括海外的大學。如果真的都不包括，那麼比如台灣的工研院 (請參考這則新聞)、澳洲的CSIRO (請參考ArsTechnica的這篇文章)、日本的Semiconductor Energy Lab (請參考這篇) 等，以後到美國提專利訴訟就都要押擔保金了。

當然這個法案只是草案，連委員會討論都沒過。不過其後續發展，值得注意。此外，我們也可以思考一下它的基本理念，是否就是專利制度針對patent troll問題的解藥呢？大家想想看吧！

以下提供SHIELD 2013原文重點供參。

===========

§ 285A. Recovery of litigation costs

(a) IN GENERAL.—In an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent—

(1) a party asserting invalidity or noninfringement may move for judgment that the adverse party does not meet at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d);

(2) not later than 90 days after a party has moved for the judgment described in paragraph (1), the adverse party shall be provided an opportunity to prove such party meets at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d);

(3) as soon as practicable after the adverse party has been provided an opportunity to respond under paragraph (2), but not later than 120 days after a party has moved for the judgment described in paragraph (1), the court shall make a determination whether the adverse party meets at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d); and

(4) notwithstanding section 285, the Court shall award the recovery of full costs to any prevailing party asserting invalidity or noninfringement, including reasonable attorney’s fees, other than the United States, upon the entry of a final judgment if the court determines that the adverse party did not meet at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d), unless the court finds that exceptional circumstances make an award unjust.

(b) BOND REQUIRED.—Any party that fails to meet a condition under subsection (a)(3) shall be required to post a bond in an amount determined by the court to cover the recovery of full costs described in subsection (a)(4).

(c) TIMING AND EFFECT OF PENDING MOTION.—

With respect to any motion made pursuant to subsection (a)(1) the following applies:

(1) In the case of a motion that is filed before the moving party’s initial disclosure are due—

(A) the court shall limit any discovery to discovery that is necessary for the disposition of the motion; and

(B) the court may delay issuing any scheduling order until after ruling on the motion.

(2) In the case of a motion that is filed after the moving party’s initial disclosures are due the court may delay ruling on the motion until after the entry of final judgment.

(3) In the case of a motion that is filed after the entry of final judgment, any such motion must be combined with a motion for fees to the prevailing party.

(d) CONDITION DEFINED.—

For purposes of this section, a ‘condition’ means, with respect to the party alleging infringement, any of the following:

(1) ORIGINAL INVENTOR.—Such party is the inventor, a joint inventor, or in the case of a patent filed by and awarded to an assignee of the original inventor or joint inventor, the original assignee of the patent.

(2) EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENT.—Such party can provide documentation to the court of substantial investment made by such party in the exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent.

(3) UNIVERSITY OR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ORGANIZATION.—Such party is—

(A) an institution of higher education (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or

(B) a technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technology developed by one or more institutions of higher education.