中企赴美参展 电动滑板涉抄袭专利当场被查封 (新華網)

中企赴美参展 电动滑板涉抄袭专利当场被查封 (新華網，2016年01月09日)

After seven-minute hearing, US Marshals raid a CES booth (ArsTechnica, Jan. 8, 2016)


關於大陸廠商在CES被美國法警搜索扣貨這個案子，以下整理了FAQ供大家參考。希望大家至少能搞清楚這到底是甚麼法律程序，往後在CES是聲請方，而非被搜索方。

值得注意的是，原告是個新創公司，主張的專利包括了設計專利與發明專利，而且是一拿到設計專利就起訴。這個法律動作非常值得台灣的新創公司參考。此外，相關程序非常快速，台灣公司最好能平常就認識一些懂專利訴訟，且能夠立即反應的美國律師，免得到時連要求補擔保金都來不及提出。


1. 誰請美國法警去展場查封產品？

答：Future Motion Inc.。它是2013年成立的新創公司，產品是 "Onewheel" 滑板。這個產品在Kickstarter上成功募資過 (原本想募100,000美金，結果超標六倍，募到630,862美金)。


2. 誰的產品被查封？

答：Changzhou First International Trade Co., Ltd.。2011年設立的公司，產品很多樣化。(Google可以找到該公司的網站，但......建議別點進去。)


3. 在哪裡被查封？

答：美國拉斯維加斯的CES展場。(不是歐洲喔。)


4. 依哪個法律程序查封？

答：原告在2016年1月5日向Nevada地方法院遞交訴狀，旋即在2016年1月6日向法院提出Emergency Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, Seizure Order and Setting Hearing Date for Motion for Preliminary Injunction，法源依據是Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65，茲將該條關於Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") 的重點節錄如下，重點是不通知對方的TRO的要件是 "立即且不可彌補的損害"，而且法院可要求聲請人要押擔保金：

Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

(a) Preliminary Injunction.

* * *

(b) Temporary Restraining Order.

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

    (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

    (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

* * *

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

5. 法院Order的實際內容為何？

答：Order在這，請看原文，別看新聞報導。原告的成本是擔保金10,000美金，C/P值算是非常高啊。


6. 原告的專利是哪幾件？內容為何？

答：美國設計專利第D746,928號 (請注意領證日是2016年1月5日，也就是原告一領證就起訴)，以及美國發明專利第9,101,817號 (領證日是2015年8月11日)。在訴狀中，原告主張被告侵害第9,101,817號專利的claims 1, 5 and 7。

下圖是設計專利第D746,928號的代表圖：

下面是第9,101,817號專利的claim 1，紅字部分是為了克服審查委員的核駁，在2015年3月31日時修改加入的內容：

1. An electric vehicle, comprising: 

• a board including first and second deck portions each configured to receive a left or right foot of a rider; 

• a wheel assembly including a ground-contacting element disposed between and extending above the first and second deck portions; 

• a motor assembly mounted to the board and configured to rotate the ground-contacting element around an axle to propel the electric vehicle; 

• at least one sensor configured to measure orientation information of the board; 

• a motor controller configured to receive orientation information measured by the sensor and to cause the motor assembly to propel the electric vehicle based on the orientation information; 

• a first light assembly disposed at a first end portion of the board; and 

• a second light assembly disposed at a second end portion of the board; 

• wherein the first light assembly is configured to output light of a first color when the board is being propelled generally in a first direction and automatically to change color and output light of a second color when the board is being propelled generally in a second direction; and

• wherein the second light assembly is configured to output light of the second color when the board is being propelled generally in the first direction and automatically to change color and output light of the first color when the board is being propelled generally in the second direction. 

原告在訴狀的Exhibit C中，有特別針對紅字的部分作出比對 (圖中的白字部分)：

7. 後續程序為何？

答：如果被告認為原告的擔保金不夠，需要於1月11日前向法院提出。此外，關於原告聲請的Preliminary Injunction，被告的反對期限也是1月11日，原告對被告反對的回覆期限是1月13日，法院開庭審理會在1月14日。這些時程都非常快速。