美國聯邦最高法院：專利訴訟中，權利懈怠不能阻卻損害賠償

SCA Hygiene Prods. V. First Quality Baby Prods. (Supreme Court. March 21, 2017)

Doctrine of Laches Cannot Bar Legal Damages Claims in Patent Cases (PatentlyO, March 21, 2017)

之前聯邦巡迴法院全院庭審的相關文章 (Fairsky Patent Memo, September 22, 2015)


美國聯邦最高法院在3月21日，正式推翻了下級法院長久以來關於權利懈怠 (Laches) 的見解。往後在美國專利訴訟中，權利懈怠不再能夠阻卻損害賠償了。關於這個案件，相關的背景事實與聯邦巡迴上訴法院先前全院庭審的判決整理，請參考這邊。

權利懈怠沒了，所以也不用討論了。值得討論的，是衡平禁反言 (equitable estoppel) 還在，而且還被聯邦最高法院認為，可以用來解決大家擔心權利懈怠沒了以後會發生的問題：

We note, however, as we did in Petrella, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel provides protection against some of the problems that First Quality highlights, namely, unscrupulous patentees inducing potential targets of infringement suits to invest in the production of arguably infringing products.

(判決文第16頁)

關於專利訴訟中，衡平禁反言的運用，經典案例是1992年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的Aukerman案 (A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F. 2d 1020 (1992) (en banc))。聯邦巡迴上訴法院在Aukerman案中，貼心地整理了重點給大家參考：

With respect to equitable estoppel against a patent infringement claim, we hold that:

1. Equitable estoppel is cognizable under 35 U.S.C. § 282 as an equitable defense to a claim for patent infringement.

2. Where an alleged infringer establishes the defense of equitable estoppel, the patentee's claim may be entirely barred.

3. Three elements must be established to bar a patentee's suit by reason of equitable estoppel:

a. The patentee, through misleading conduct, leads the alleged infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee does not intend to enforce its patent against the alleged infringer. "Conduct" may include specific statements, action, inaction, or silence where there was an obligation to speak.

b. The alleged infringer relies on that conduct.

c. Due to its reliance, the alleged infringer will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its claim.

4. No presumption is applicable to the defense of equitable estoppel.

960 F. 2d at 1208.

衡平禁反言要成立，需要被控侵權人信賴了 (relied) 專利權人的誤導行為 (misleading conduct)。這個被信賴的誤導行為，可以包括 "不作為"。比如在1980年的Jensen v. Western Irr. and Mfg., Inc., 650 F. 2d 165 (9th Cir., 1980) 案中，專利權人Jensen於1964年就知道被告疑似侵權，並於1966年發了律師函給被告。然而，在那之後專利權人都沒動作，直到1974年 (沒錯，隔了10年) 才起訴被告。

地方法院認為專利權人的行為，權利懈怠跟衡平禁反言都成立。第九巡迴上訴法院則認為，如果專利權人警告被控侵權人，會採取立即的維權行動，但卻甚麼都沒做，這個行為有可能會誤導被控侵權人，使其相信專利權人放棄了維權：

If a patentee threatens an alleged infringer with prompt enforcement of the patent and then does nothing, that action may be sufficiently misleading to induce the alleged infringer to believe that the objection has been abandoned.

650 F.2d at 169.

由於地方法院沒有審酌上面這點，所以看不出來到底被控侵權人是否合理地信賴了專利權人的不作為。因此上訴法院維持了權利懈怠成立，卻發回衡平禁反言的部分，要地方法院再次審酌相關事實。這個案子是一個權利懈怠與衡平禁反言的主要不同點的明顯例子。

少了權利懈怠，往後不論是專利權人還是被控侵權人，在聯絡的過程中，需要更留意衡平禁反言的問題了。與權利懈怠只能阻卻起訴前的損害賠償不同，衡平禁反言雖然較難成立，但成立後可以阻卻所有的損害賠償喔。