網頁

2016年10月11日 星期二

全院庭審判決:上訴審禁用卷宗外的外部證據來審理未上訴爭點:Apple v. Samsung (Fed. Cir., October 7, 2016) (en banc)

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir., October 7, 2016) (en banc)

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir., February 26, 2016) (今年二月三位法官的合議庭判決)



10月7日美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院就Apple v. Samsung案作出全院庭審判決 (en banc decision)。這個判決總共十一位法官出來投票,七位法官加入長達52頁的多數意見,一位法官支持多數意見但未寫協同意見,剩下三位法官則分別寫了總共加起來長達55頁 (23頁+23頁+9頁) 的三份不同意見。整個判決文的檔案,長達107頁。

真是吵成一團啊。

簡單來說,全院庭審的多數意見完全推翻了今年二月的合議庭判決。最早地方法院的判決被恢復。當年地方法院判賠的金額,可是約1.2億美金的天價呢!

全院庭審的主因:上訴審禁用卷宗外的外部證據  (extra-record extrinsic evidence) 來審理未上訴爭點



聯邦巡迴上訴法院同意進行全院庭審的主因,是認為今年2月的合議庭判決,違反了上訴審理的三點基本精神:(1) 只處理當事人上訴的爭點,(2) 只基於下級法院的卷宗來審理這些爭點,以及 (3) 對事實調查結果 (fact findings) 適當的遵從 (deference):
We granted Apple’s en banc petition to affirm our understanding of the appellate function as limited to deciding the issues raised on appeal by the parties, deciding these issues only on the basis of the record made below, and as requiring appropriate deference be applied to the review of fact findings.
(多數意見第4頁。)

比如說,關於美國專利第5,946,647號的請求項9 (請求項1的附屬項),原本在地方法院陪審團判定侵權時,就 "analyzer server" 這個用語,地方法院指示陪審團將其解釋為 "一個自客戶端 分離 (separate) 的伺服器程序" :
The term “analyzer server” means “a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client.”
(多數意見第8頁。)

然而在今年二月的判決文中,合議庭認為蘋果沒有證明三星的產品侵權,因為三星的軟體不是 "獨立(standalone)" 運作的程式:
But this conflicting testimony is not relevant to whether the software on the Samsung devices runs separately or is run by the client application. Regardless of whether the code is copied, the expert testimony from both sides shows that the Samsung software library programs are not “standalone” programs that run separately. 
(今年二月的合議庭判決文,第13頁。)

合議庭做出 "獨立" 這個解釋時,採用了一些外部證據,比如Dictionary of Computing、Object-Oriented Information Engineering: Analysis, Design, and Implementation等等 (參考今年二月的合議庭判決文,第9頁)。這些外部證據是合議庭自己找來的,不是雙方當事人在地方法院時提出的證據。

"分離 (separate)" 跟 "獨立(standalone)" 的差別,在於前者只需要在運作時,程式碼的位置在記憶體中與客戶端不同就可以,後者則需要在運作時,完全不依靠客戶端。理論上前者的範圍比較大,後者的範圍比較小。由於採取了範圍較小的後者,合議庭撤銷了地方法院的侵權判決。

如今,全院庭審的多數意見認為,二月合議庭的這些動作都不行。這些外部證據是卷宗外的外部證據 (extra-record extrinsic evidence),不是地方法院審理時雙方遞交的證據,當事人也根本就沒有針對請求項用語的解釋上訴。上訴法院從一開始就不應該依賴卷宗外的外部證據,也不被允許撤銷沒有上訴的事實調查結果:
We did not need to solicit additional briefing or argument to conclude that the appellate court cannot rely on extra-record extrinsic evidence in the first instance or make factual findings about what such extrinsic evidence suggests about the plain meaning of a claim term in the art at the relevant time or how such extra record evidence may inform our understanding of how the accused device operates. We likewise did not need additional briefing or argument to determine that the appellate court is not permitted to reverse fact findings that were not appealed or that the appellate court is required to review jury fact findings when they are appealed for substantial evidence.
(多數意見第4-5頁。)

因此,全院庭審重新檢視地方法院陪審團所做出的侵權判定,是否有實質的證據支持。當年的關鍵,是專家證人的證詞。關於三星被控產品的程式是否與客戶端 "分離",雙方的專家證人講的完全相反 (廢話當然是這樣啊)。全院庭審多數意見認為,哪一邊的證詞較具說服力,當然是交給陪審團來判斷最適合啊:
Dr. Jeffay provided contrary testimony to Dr. Mowry, but the jury was in the best position to determine whether it found Dr. Mowry or Dr. Jeffay more persuasive.  See, e.g., MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[W]hen there is conflicting testimony at trial, and the evidence overall does not make only one finding on the point reasonable, the jury is permitted to make credibility determinations and believe the witness it considers more trustworthy.”).
(多數意見第16頁。)

於是,全院庭審多數意見認為,地方法院陪審團所做出的侵權判定有實質的證據支持,因此推翻了二月合議庭的不侵權判決,恢復了地方法院的侵權判決。

非顯而易見性的判斷


這個判決的另一個重點,是非顯而易見性的判斷。這是多數意見跟不同意見的主要分歧所在。

第8,046,721號專利 (這就是有名的 "滑動解鎖" 專利) 的請求項8為例,雙方當事人攻防的重點,在於熟悉相關技術者是否有動機結合Neonode與Plaisant這兩篇前案,讓蘋果的滑動解鎖專利因顯而易見而無效。Neonode揭露了在觸控螢幕上往右滑動以解鎖行動裝置,這個向右滑動沒有特定路線;Plaisant 揭露了嵌在牆上的空調觸控螢幕的滑動開關,這個滑動有特定路線。

多數意見的邏輯是:

  1. "熟悉相關技術者是否有動機結合前案" 是事實問題。
    ("What a prior art reference teaches and whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine references are questions of fact.") (多數意見第28頁。)
  2. 上訴法院只能審理地方法院的判斷,是否有實質證據支持。
    ("The question for our review is whether substantial evidence supports this implied fact finding.") (多數意見第30頁。) 
  3. 多數意見認為地方法院的判斷,即熟悉相關技術者沒有動機結合Neonode與Plaisant這兩篇前案,有實質證據支持。
    (We agree with the district court: “A reasonable jury could infer from this testimony that an ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to combine elements from a wall-mounted touchscreen for home appliances and a smartphone, particularly in view of the ‘pocket dialing’ problem specific to mobile devices that Apple’s invention sought to address.”) (多數意見第31頁。)
  4. 然後多數意見審酌了各個Graham因素 (台灣叫做 "輔助性判斷因素"):
    1. commercial success enjoyed by devices practicing the patented invention (多數意見第35頁。) 
    2. industry praise for the patented invention (多數意見第32頁。)
    3. copying by others (多數意見第34頁。)
    4. the existence of a long-felt but unsatisfied need for the invention  (多數意見第38頁。)
  5. 審酌Graham因素後,多數意見的結論是,地方法院拒絕就顯而易見性再為法律問題判決 (JMOL, Judgment as a Matter Of Law) 是正確的。 
    ("Weighing all of the Graham factors, we agree with the district court on the ultimate legal determination that Samsung failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that claim 8 of the ’721 patent would have been obvious. We affirm the district court’s denial of JMOL.")  (多數意見第38頁。)

不同意見認為,上面這個邏輯從頭開始就整個不對。三份不同意見中,以Dyk法官整理的最清楚:
  1. "熟悉相關技術者是否有動機結合前案" 是法律問題,不是事實問題。
    ("Yet the majority holds that the question of the sufficiency of the motivation here was a jury question. This is inconsistent with KSR.") (Dyk法官不同意見書第5頁)
  2. Graham因素的審酌也是法律問題。
    ("The specific holdings in Graham and KSR themselves demonstrate that both the significance and the weighing of secondary considerations are legal issues for the court.") (Dyk法官不同意見書第5頁)
  3. 前案的結合不需要特定動機的證據;有解決已知問題就夠了。
    ("the majority concludes that combinations of prior art used to solve a known problem are insufficient to render an invention obvious as a matter of law. According to the majority, there must be evidence of a specific motivation to combine. See Maj. Op. at 28–31. Both aspects of these conclusions are contrary to KSR.") (Dyk法官不同意見書第6頁)
  4. 當專利請求項已經顯而易見時,Graham因素不能把請求項反過來變成非顯而易見。
    ("when, as here, a patent is plainly not inventive, that is, when the prima facie case of obviousness is strong, secondary considerations carry little weight.") (Dyk法官不同意見書第13頁)
  5. 多數意見審酌Graham因素的方式也錯誤。
    ("even if secondary considerations in this case were legally relevant, the majority fails to compare to the closest prior art to properly assess the innovation over the prior art.") (Dyk法官不同意見書第15-16頁)
此外,三位出具不同意見的法官都認為,由於這個全院庭審判決已經改變了顯而易見性的判斷標準。因此在作出全院庭審判決前,應該如往常一樣,公開徵求各方意見才對。但這次聯邦巡迴上訴法院卻沒有這樣做。這也是一個問題。

讀後意見


針對上面的'647專利,其實有個技術問題:大部分的軟體功能模組,在運作時應該會是 "有自己的記憶體區塊" 的。如果是這樣,那照多數意見的說法,軟體功能模組就會變成 analyzer server了 -- 因為程式碼的位置在記憶體中,與主程式分開。

相信這對懂軟體的人,都會覺得怪對吧。一個在手機上運作的軟體功能模組,怎會變成 "server"  (然後主程式是這個功能模組的client) 呢?

打個專利訴訟,能把技術問題打成這樣,也太神奇了。

至於顯而易見性的判斷問題,日後主要需要注意兩點。

首先是要證明請求項的發明顯而易見,必須要有實質證據支持 "前案結合的動機" 這件事。這也有點怪。如果我記得沒錯,這點不是在KSR案之後,已經被放寬了嗎?看來我需要把KSR再翻出來看一下才行。

其次是Graham因素。現在看起來,在討論顯而易見性時,似乎是每個案子都一定要討論Graham因素 -- 即使請求項的顯而易見已經非常明確。這真的跟之前我理解的不同。我的理解比較接近 Dow Co. v. Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945):
But these considerations are relevant only in a close case where all other proof leaves the question of invention in doubt....  Here the lack of invention is beyond doubt and cannot be out-weighed by such factors.
324 U.S. 320 at 330.

最後,訴訟真的是什麼事都會發生。所謂 "上訴審禁用卷宗外的外部證據來審理未上訴爭點" ,其實一直都是這樣的。但現在居然在雙方都請王牌大律師的案子中出現了問題,需要以全院庭審來解決。如果連蘋果訴三星都會這樣,那其他的訴訟,碰到各種問題,也就不足為奇了。

期待一個完美的司法體制,能完美的解決問題,終究是不切實際的吧。


沒有留言:

張貼留言

注意:只有此網誌的成員可以留言。