近期專利相關新聞整理

Drafting License Agreements: Agreement Unenforceable Post-Patent-Expiration Even When Contract Says Otherwise
(PatentlyO, July 18, 2013)

第九巡迴上訴法院的判決文在這

直接節錄這個判決的重點如下：

The rule that follows, in relevant part, is that a license for inseparable patent and non-patent rights involving royalty payments that extends beyond a patent term is unenforceable for the post-expiration period unless the agreement provides a discount for the non-patent rights from the patent-protected rate. This is because—in the absence of a discount or other clear indication that the license was in no way subject to patent leverage—we presume that the post-expiration royalty payments are for the then-current patent use, which is an improper extension of the patent monopoly under Brulotte.

這其實不是新的觀念，但審約法務們可能還是需要注意一下。如果跟別人簽 "混合型" 的授權合約，比如專利授權+技術移轉等等，必須小心權利金的約定，必須日後能夠讓人區分專利的授權金與其它的授權金。如果不能區分，那麼專利到期之後的權利金約定，除非有discount，不然無法依合約主張。

詳情還是請看判決文。這個專利跟蜘蛛人吐絲技術有關喔！




ITC releases public version of the Commission opinion (and dissent) in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)
(http://essentialpatentblog.com/, July 8, 2013)

ITC的 Commission Opinion (Public Version) 在這

儘管大家好像都覺得，工業標準專利權人不應該聲請禁制令禁止被告出貨，ITC前陣子針對Samsung v. Apple案，還是發出了Exclusion Order。現在這個Order的公開版本出來了，大家終於可以了解Commission的邏輯了。

首先，ITC覺得Apple沒有盡到其防禦方法的舉證責任，比如：

• 蘋果沒有說明ITC為什麼不能對工業標準專利的侵權展開調查：

Apple has not offered any statutory construction that demonstrates that the Commission per se cannot investigate violations of section 337 based on infringement of a declared-essential patent.   (第46頁第8-10行)

• 蘋果沒有指出合約爭議的基本要件 (FRAND爭議本質上是合約爭議)：

Apple has not identified the basic elements necessary to prove a contract: the parties, the offer, the acceptance, the consideration, and definite terms. "In the absence of contractual intent or sufficiently definite terms, no contractual obligations arise."    (第48頁第10-13行)

• 蘋果沒有提出所謂的FRAND的解釋：

Apple failed to preserve an argument as to the proper legal interpretation of the FRAND declarations at issue in this investigation.   (第48頁最後一行)

• 三星的FRAND聲明是依法國法！蘋果沒講依法國法三星的FRAND爭議怎麼處理：

Samsung's declarations to ETSI state that "[t]he construction, validity and performance of this DECLARATION shall be governed by the laws of France." ... at the hearing in this investigation Apple presented no evidence of how "the laws of France" would view Samsung's obligations with respect to declared-essential patents in this forum....    (第49頁第9-11行以及最後三行)

• 其實蘋果還爭執三星的專利不是工業標準相關，但這個事實問題雙方沒有要ITC解決：

Apple argued to the ALJ that the '348 and '644 patents are not essential....  A factual dispute on this point clearly exists among the parties, but no party asked the ALJ to resolve this dispute. (第50頁第12-19行)

蘋果的律師通常都很厲害呀，怎麼這次這家 (WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP ) 看起來犯了很多錯誤？

再者，這個Order描述了雙方的談判過程。雖然很多都被遮掉，但還是看的出來，雙方一直在談，直到今年初還在開會跟擬訂MoU喔。

這邊有一個重點：Commission覺得所謂FRAND權利金是 "談出來的"，所以即使三星的offer有點高，只要還在好好談，就沒有違反FRAND義務：

... satisfaction of the obligation flowing from a FRAND declaration is not measured by a specific offer, "be it an initial offer or an offer during a back-and-forth negotiation." Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 864 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2012). Thus, even if it were true that a FRAND agreement that requires Apple to pay Samsung ultimately is not reasonable (an issue on which we have no opinion), the offers that Apple criticizes do not necessarily demonstrate that Samsung has violated its FRAND obligations by failing to negotiate in good faith.  (第62頁第10-16行)

這點我覺得不合理。這個意思是說，工業標準相關專利權人可以隨便喊價 (比如10%)，都不會違反FRAND義務，因為他只需要說 "來來來我們好好談" 就好了 -- 然後一直談不下來。現在Apple跟Samsung感覺就是這個狀況。

最後，關於公眾利益 (Public interests)，這邊有個重點：後續蘋果的產品改用Qualcomm的chipsets，這些都不會被擋，所以後續影響很小：

... at any Apple products that use a Qualcomm baseband processor for cellular network connectivity should not be barred from entry. Later Apple products, including the iPhone 5 and iPad 3, use Qualcomm baseband processors. Thus, it appears that an exclusionary remedy will have no effect on those later generation Apple products.   (第109頁倒數四行)

看來關於專利授權問題，選對料件供應商有時影響很大啊。Qualcomm看來股價又要漲了。


這個Commission Opinion很長，其它內容有興趣者請參閱原文。別忘記它有個不同意見書喔。