3D列印的新專利問題：ITC無權限阻擋電子資料傳輸：ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC (Fed. Cir., November 10, 2015)

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC (Fed. Cir., November 10, 2015)


美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在本月10日作出一個重要判決：美國關稅法337條中的「article」一字，不包括電子傳輸的數位資料。這並非終局判決，還可以要求全院庭審。

其實這個案子呈現了一個「舊法律無法規範新技術的運作」的問題。

本案被ITC調查的ClearCorrect Operating LLC ("ClearCorect US") 是一家銷售牙齒矯正器的美國公司。ClearCorect US在美國境內掃描病患的牙齒形狀後，把牙齒形狀的初始尺寸資料，透過網際網路傳送到巴基斯坦給Clear Correct Pakistan (Private), Ltd. (“ClearCorrect Pakistan”)。ClearCorrect Pakistan在巴基斯坦基於這個初始尺寸資料，建構出多個漸進的牙齒矯正器數位模型後，把這些數位模型從巴基斯坦傳回給ClearCorect US。ClearCorect US在美國用3D列印技術，把數位模型列印出來作為模具，以製作出多個漸進的實體牙齒矯正器。

換句話說，真正「進口」到美國的，並不是實體的牙齒矯正器，而是牙齒矯正器的數位模型 -- 一個電子傳輸的數位資料。

本案的代表請求項，是US 6,722,880的claim 1：

1. A method for making a predetermined series of dental incremental position adjustment appliances, said method comprising:
    a) obtaining a digital data set representing an initial tooth arrangement;
    b) obtaining a repositioned tooth arrangement based on the initial tooth arrangement;
    c) obtaining a series of successive digital data sets representing a series of successive tooth arrangements; and
    d) fabricating a predetermined series of dental incremental position adjustment appliances based on the series of successive digital data sets,
    wherein said appliances comprise polymeric shells having cavities shaped to receive and resiliently reposition teeth, and said appliances correspond to the series of successive tooth arrangements progressing from the initial to the repositioned tooth arrangement.

ITC認定關於這個請求項，ClearCorrect US成立直接侵權，ClearCorrect  Pakistan成立輔助侵權。此外更重要的，是ITC認定ClearCorrect  Pakistan傳送的數位模型，落入美國關稅法337條中的「article」的定義，因此ITC就電子數位資料的傳輸，具有關稅法337條的法定權限。

美國關稅法337條相關的文字如下：

§1337. Unfair practices in import trade

(a) Unlawful activities; covered industries; definitions

    (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the following are unlawful, and when found by the Commission to exist shall be dealt with, in addition to any other provision of law, as provided in this section:

 * * *

        (B) The importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that—

               (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent or a valid and enforceable United States copyright registered under title 17; or

               (ii) are made, produced, processed, or mined under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable United States patent.

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決的重點，就是認為ITC錯誤地解釋了「article」這個字的意思，認為這個字只能包括「material things」，因此不包括電子傳輸的數位資料：

Here we conclude that the literal text by itself, when viewed in context and with an eye towards the statutory scheme, is clear and thus answers the question at hand. “Articles” is defined as “material things,” and thus does not extend to electronic transmission of digital data. 

(判決文第13頁)

本案是法律解釋學的問題。ITC的立場，是關稅法337條中的「article」這個字，應該可以作較廣的解釋，以便處理新的網路傳輸相關的問題。但聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，不管從這個字本身在字典裡的定義作文義解釋，從法律其它地方使用這個字的情況來作體系解釋，還是從立法過程來作立法解釋跟目的解釋，都讓「article」無法被合理地被解釋為涵蓋數位資料。聯邦巡迴上訴法院更明白表示，如果這個解釋有任何問題，更好的作法是由國會來修法：

Under these circumstances we think it is best to leave to Congress the task of expanding the statute if we are wrong in our interpretation. Congress is in a far better position to draw the lines that must be drawn if the product of intellectual processes rather than manufacturing processes are to be included within the statute.

(判決文第35頁)

因此，除非這個見解日後有變更，或是美國國會修法，否則依本案的結論，3D列印技術將可以成功的迴避美國關稅法337條的適用，因為進口的不再是實體產品，而是對應實體產品的數位資料。這真是一個「舊法律無法規範新技術的運作」的問題。

最後，這不是第一次關稅法337條中的「article」這個字出問題了。幾個月前在Supreme v. ITC一案也是在討論類似的問題。有興趣者請參考我們之前的文章。我們之前還為了Suprema這個案子辦過講座，也許我們會為ClearCorrect這個案子再辦一場吧。屆時再請大家多多捧場指教。