Apple告了一堆與Nokia相關的專利主張實體

Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al. (Scribd, December 20, 2016)

Enough is enough: Apple files antitrust complaint against multiple Nokia privateers (FOSS Patents, December 21, 2016)

Apple sues Nokia's pet patent trolls (The Register, December 21, 2016)


在Nokia訴Apple專利侵權之後，Apple起訴了多家與Nokia相關的專利主張實體 (Patent Assertion Entity, PAE)，主張他們不公平競爭。這個40多頁的訴狀內容精彩，以下節錄一些重點供大家參考。

關於Nokia又告Apple的幾點觀察

Nokia Suits Escalate Apple Mobile-Patent Licensing Fight (Bloomberg, December 22, 2016)

訴狀一 (H.264 工業標準相關專利)

訴狀二 (非工業標準相關專利)


諾基亞又告蘋果專利侵權了。幾點觀察重點：

CAFC判決整理 (11/1~11/15)

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. [REVISED OPINION] (Fed. Cir., November 1, 2016)

在這個判決中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院終於承認一件事：關於到底甚麼是 "抽象概念"，迄今沒有一個單一、簡潔、有用的定義或測試：

Whether the more detailed analysis is undertaken at step one or at step two, the analysis presumably would be based on a generally-accepted and understood definition of, or test for, what an ‘abstract idea’ encompasses.  However, a search for a single test or definition in the decided cases concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test.  The problem with articulating a single, universal definition of ‘abstract idea’ is that it is difficult to fashion a workable definition to be applied to as-yet-unknown cases with as-yet-unknown inventions. That is not for want of trying; to the extent the efforts so far have been unsuccessful it is because they often end up using alternative but equally abstract terms or are overly narrow.

(判決文第9頁)

CAFC判決整理 (10/16~10/31)

SYNOPSYS, INC. v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir., October 17, 2016)

這個案子我們已經介紹過囉。


IN RE: EFTHYMIOPOULOS (Fed. Cir., October 18, 2016)

美國專利商標局認為請求項的內容 (一種流感的治療方法) 顯而易見，核駁了申請案。聯邦巡迴上訴確認了此核駁決定。

美國聯邦最高法院改變了設計專利的損害賠償計算方法

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (US Supreme Court, December 6, 2016)

U.S. Supreme Court backs Samsung in smartphone fight with Apple (Reuters, December 6, 2016)

之前Fairsky Patent Memo的相關文章


Apple跟Samsung的專利訴訟打得如火如荼，花大錢一路打上美國聯邦最高法院。現在判決文終於出爐，只有九頁，全部大法官一致通過。突然之間，這個價值三億九千萬美金的問題，好像變得......很簡單。

直接講重點：

美國聯邦最高法院推翻了下級法院關於設計專利的損害賠償的計算方法，認為法條中所謂的 "article of manufacture" ，可以是產品中的零組件，"total profit" 則可以是該零組件的利潤。

本案爭點在美國專利法第289條第一段應如何解釋。該條規定，未經設計專利權人授權，而將專利設計應用於欲銷售的製造物者，應賠償其所有利潤：

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.