權利懈怠仍是專利訴訟中可主張的防禦方法：SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products (Fed. Cir., September 18, 2015) (en banc)

SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products (Fed. Cir., September 18, 2015) (en banc)

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014).


2003年10月時， SCA Hygiene對First Quality Baby Products寄出敬告函，指稱其產品侵害了SCA Hygiene的美國專利第6,375,646號。First Quality Baby Products不到一個月，於2003年11月就回信，主張SCA Hygiene的專利相對於前案 (美國專利第5,415,649號) 沒有可專利性。

之後雙方就再也沒有聯絡。2004年7月時，SCA Hygiene對自己的專利提出了單方重新審查 (Ex parte reexamination)，唯這件事SCA Hygiene也沒有對First Quality Baby Products提 -- 因為覺得不需要提。在這段期間內，First Quality Baby Products不斷擴張其經營規模，投資了上千萬美金。

一直到2010年8月，雙方最後一次聯絡的6年多後， SCA Hygiene才起訴First Quality Baby Products專利侵權。First Quality Baby Products主張專利權人權利懈怠 (Laches) 與衡平禁反言 (Equitable Estoppel)，地方法院同意。聯邦巡迴上訴法院駁回了衡平禁反言的主張，但確認了權利懈怠這部份仍成立。

2014年美國聯邦最高法院在Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.案中，就著作權作出 "權利懈怠不是防禦方法" 的見解。SCA Hygiene因此聲請聯邦巡迴上訴法院進行全院庭審，確認權利懈怠在Petrella案之後，是否還是專利訴訟可主張的防禦方法。

經過全院庭審後，聯邦巡迴上訴法院的法官們以6：5確認在Petrella案後，權利懈怠仍然還是專利訴訟可主張的防禦方法。

========

長久以來，美國法院關於專利權人的權利懈怠與衡平禁反言，經典案例是1992年的A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)。這個判決文寫的很好，整理了權利懈怠與衡平禁反言的重點，以及兩者不同的地方。之前我與我的客戶在討論權利懈怠與衡平禁反言時，case study用的就是這個案子。

2014年美國聯邦最高法院在Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.案中，認為 "權利懈怠不是著作權侵害的防禦方法" 的原因，是因為權利懈怠是基於衡平法的防禦方法，是在立法者在法律中沒有訂定消滅時效時用的。權利懈怠只能填補立法空缺，不能凌駕法律。所以，如果立法者在法律中已經訂立了消滅時效的規定 (著作權法§ 507(b)有消滅時效的規定)，基於權力分立，權利懈怠就不能被法院用來阻卻法律救濟：

Historically, “laches is a defense developed by courts of equity; its principal application was, and remains, to claims of an equitable cast for which the Legislature has provided no fixed time limitation.” Id. at 1973. Laches is thus “gap-filling, not legislation-overriding.” Id. at 1974. In this respect, separation of powers concerns drove the result in Petrella. Petrella consequently held that “in face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress, laches cannot be invoked to bar legal relief.” Id. Therefore, under Petrella, “[t]o the extent that an infringement suit seeks relief solely for conduct occurring within the limitations period . . . courts are not at liberty to jettison Congress’ judgment on the timeliness of suit.” Id. at 1967.

(判決文第14頁)

聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為Petrella關於著作權法的見解，在專利法上不能套用，原因是在漫長的法律研究之後，聯邦巡迴上訴法院的全院庭審多數意見認為，國會根本就已經在專利法第282條中將權利懈怠法條化了，所以當然可以主張：

To summarize, § 282 uses inclusive language, the legislative history characterizes § 282 as “broader” and “general,” and the Federico Commentary explicitly states that § 282 includes laches. The dissent does not point to anything that contradicts our understanding of § 282. Accordingly, we conclude that Congress codified a laches defense in § 282.

(判決文第14頁)

這一點是這個全院庭審判決的最重點。聯邦巡迴上訴法院後面所有的推論，都是從這個觀念展開的。然而，這個見解是6：5通過的，也就是說有接近一半的法官其實不同意這個見解。

Hughes法官的不同意見書的主要論點不難理解：從282條看不出來權利懈怠有被法條化，還講說「法律解釋不能用猜的啊」：

The language in § 282(b)(1) is ambiguous at best, and contains no hint of a special version of laches that applies to legal relief within a statutory limitations period. The terms “absence of liability” and “unenforceability” do not precisely refer to any particular defenses to patent infringement suits. Although the plain meaning of these terms does not conclusively rule out the defense of laches, it does not necessarily include a defense of laches either. The majority seems to think that the indeterminate breadth of these terms helps its case, making it more likely that laches falls somewhere within their scope, whatever that may be. See Maj. Op. at 18–20. But statutory interpretation cannot turn on this kind of guesswork. And even if laches were implicit in § 282, that would not be enough, for the question is whether Congress prescribed a variant form of laches in the Patent Act that applies to claims for legal relief.

(不同意見書第5-6頁)

從這個論點出發，不同意見書認為多數意見所採用的法律解釋方法是錯誤的。比如多數意見沒有考慮專利法286條已經對於損害賠償設立了最多追溯的六年的限制。這個時間的限制，加上286條的立法理由，可以推論國會其實是想讓286條成為專利權人主張權利的時間限制，而不是將權利懈怠這個也跟時間相關的防禦方法放進282條：

Notwithstanding the additional elements of laches beyond mere delay, the Supreme Court held that laches and the statute of limitations were in such conflict that applying laches created a separation of powers problem. See Petrella, 134 S. Ct. at 1967, 1973. Congress’ decision to create a fixed statutory limitations period in § 286 therefore strongly suggests that it did not intend to codify a defense of laches that further regulates the timeliness of damages claims.

(不同意見書第7頁)

其它內容請參考判決文原文吧。看法官們辯論是很過癮的一件事。看起來這個案子很有可能進入聯邦最高法院喔。

相關討論請參考Knowledge Repository。(本案被歸類在 "專利訴訟管理 ==> 美國法院專利訴訟--實體攻防概論 ==> 法務相關 ==> 權利懈怠" 條目下。)