美國專利侵權分析：基本觀念相關重要判決整理 (二)

美國專利侵權分析：基本觀念相關重要判決整理 (一)


本篇主要重點包括：(1) 能夠侵權原則 (Capable of Infringement Doctrine)、(2) 請求項失效原則 (Claim Vitiation Doctrine)、以及 (3) 手段附加功能用語 (Means-plus-function Clause)。前兩點比較少見，但實務上在判斷侵權與否時相當重要。第三點的重要性就不必多說了，不管是專利申請還是侵權分析，都必須非常熟悉才行。

能夠侵權原則 (Capable of Infringement Doctrine)

Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991)：物的請求項若採用「能夠達成某種功能」的寫法，則被控產品僅需能夠達成該功能即直接侵權，不以確實有達成該功能為必要：

Because the language of claim 1 refers to "programmable selection means" and states "whereby when said alternate addressing mode is selected" (emphases added), the accused device, to be infringing, need only be capable of operating in the page mode. Contrary to GI/M's argument, actual page mode operation in the accused device is not required.

946 F.2d at 832.

See also: 

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. 626 F. 3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( [T]o infringe a claim that recites capability and not actual operation, an accused device "need only be capable of operating" in the described mode.)

Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[A]n accused device may be found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitations, even though it may also be capable of noninfringing modes of operation.")


High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995)：產品不會只因為可以被修改成滿足請求項的限制條件就侵權。

[A] device does not infringe simply because it is possible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limitations of a patent claim. 

49 F.3d at 1555.

[I]f a device is designed to be altered or assembled before operation, the manufacturer may be held liable for infringement if the device, as altered or assembled, infringes a valid patent.... That principle is inapplicable here, however, because the record provides no reason to disregard the set screws in determining the character of the coupling between the AcuCam camera and its housing.

Id. at 1556.

See also:  

Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc., 287 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (the court rejected "the proposition, as argued by Fantasy, that infringement may be based upon a finding that an accused product is merely capable of being modified in a manner that infringes the claims of a patent.") 

Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ("[T]hat a device is capable of being modified to operate in an infringing manner is not sufficient, by itself, to support a finding of infringement.")


Note: 

請仔細比較以上Intel案與High Tech Med案兩種不同狀況的差別。關鍵在於： (1) claim的用語究竟為何，以及 (2) 產品是否需要 "被修改" 才會被讀入claim的用語。這兩點會影響專利申請與侵權分析的實務操作甚鉅，不可不慎。


請求項失效原則 (Claim Vitiation Doctrine)

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 US 17 (US Supreme Court, 1997)：均等論需針對各要件比對，而非對請求項整體比對，如此才不會讓請求項的核心功能失效：

Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. It is important to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety. So long as the doctrine of equivalents does not encroach beyond the limits just described, or beyond related limits to be discussed infra this page and 31-34, 39, n. 8, and 39-40, we are confident that the doctrine will not vitiate the central functions of the patent claims themselves.

520 US at 29


Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir.2012)：請求項失效原則不是均等論的例外，而是一個「證據是否足以讓合理的陪審團判定兩者均等」的法律判斷：

"Vitiation" is not an exception to the doctrine of equivalents, but instead a legal determination that "the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent." Id. The proper inquiry for the court is to apply the doctrine of equivalents, asking whether an asserted equivalent represents an "insubstantial difference" from the claimed element, or "whether the substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element." Id. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040. If no reasonable jury could find equivalence, then the court must grant summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040.

703 F.3d at 1356.


手段附加功能用語 (Means-plus-function Clause)

1. 法律依據

35 U.S.C. 112(f)：Element in Claim for a Combination.—

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

2. 手段附加功能用語的適用

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F. 3d 1339 (Fed. Cir., 2015) (en banc)：使用 "means" 這個用語推定適用美國專利法112條第6項，反之則推定不適用，兩者均可舉反證推翻：

[T]he use of the word "means" in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies. 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing cases). Applying the converse, we stated that the failure to use the word "means" also creates a rebuttable presumption — this time that § 112, para. 6 does not apply. Id. 

792 F. 3d at 1348.


3. 說明書的對應結構

In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed.Cir., 1994) (en banc)：如果使用了功能附加手段用語，那就必須在說明書中揭露適當的結構，否則請求項會因未滿足112條第2段而無效：

[I]f one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.

16 F.3d at 1195.


 Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir., 2008)：以電腦實施的發明，功能附加手段用語所對應的結構，是說明書所揭露的演算法 (而不是通用電腦的硬體結構)：

[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification. 

521 F.3d at 1333.


Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F. 3d 616 (Fed.Cir., 2015)：Katz Exception：標準微處理器可作為「通用電腦不須特別程式即可達成的功能」所對應的結構：

[A] standard microprocessor can serve as sufficient structure for "functions [that] can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming." Katz, 639 F.3d at 1316.

785 F. 3d at 621.