[非常重要] 美國聯邦最高法院放寬專利耗盡原則的適用：Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. (May 30, 2017)

針對專利耗盡的適用，美國聯邦最高法院於日前做出重要判決，改變了之前下級法院的見解。關於本案的事實，請參考之前的文章。(那篇文章只要看前面的事實就好。後面的法院見解不用看，現在已經整個變了。)

以下直接整理這次判決文的重點，以及幾個值得注意的事項。


相關連結


最高法院判決文：Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. (US Supreme Court, May 30, 2017)
Impression v. Lexmark: Patent Rights Exhausted by Sale, Domestic or Abroad (PatentlyO, May 30, 2017)
Patent Exhaustion at the Supreme Court: Industry Reaction to Impression Products v. Lexmark (ipwatchdog.com, May 30, 2017)
之前相關文章：CAFC關於專利耗盡的全院庭審判決：Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc. (Fed. Cir., February 12, 2016) (en banc) (Fairsky Patent Memo, February 15, 2016)


判決文重點


1. 基本觀念：專利權人銷售產品後，該物品因所有權移轉給買方，而成為買方的私有財產，不在專利權的範圍內：

When a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser, with the rights and benefits that come along with ownership. [Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-550 (1853)]. A patentee is free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, but may not, “by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition” of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241, 250 (1942) (emphasis added). The sale “terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625 (2008).

(判決文第5-6頁)


2. 若專利權人在銷售時，對產品做了任何限制，那是與買家之間的合約問題，不是專利侵權問題：

Lexmark cannot bring a patent infringement suit against Impression Products to enforce the single-use/no-resale provision accompanying its Return Program cartridges. Once sold, the Return Program cartridges passed outside of the patent monopoly, and whatever rights Lexmark retained are a matter of the contracts with its purchasers, not the patent law. 

(判決文第9頁)


3. 授權與銷售不同：銷售是移轉所有權 (所以一移轉專利權就耗盡)，授權是改變壟斷的邊界 (所以可以對專利權授權內容設限)；專利權人可以對授權內容設限，不代表專利權人可以對售後行為主張專利權：

A patentee can impose restrictions on licensees because a license does not implicate the same concerns about restraints on alienation as a sale. Patent exhaustion reflects the principle that, when an item passes into commerce, it should not be shaded by a legal cloud on title as it moves through the marketplace. But a license is not about passing title to a product, it is about changing the contours of the patentee’s monopoly: The patentee agrees not to exclude a licensee from making or selling the patented invention, expanding the club of authorized producers and sellers. See General Elec. Co., 272 U. S., at 489–490. Because the patentee is exchanging rights, not goods, it is free to relinquish only a portion of its bundle of patent protections. 

A patentee’s authority to limit licensees does not, as the Federal Circuit thought, mean that patentees can use licenses to impose post-sale restrictions on purchasers that are enforceable through the patent laws. 

(判決文第11頁)


4. 只要在銷售產品時遵循了授權合約，被授權人的銷售就等同專利權人自己銷售，一樣讓專利權耗盡：

So long as a licensee complies with the license when selling an item, the patentee has, in effect, authorized the sale. That licensee’s sale is treated, for purposes of patent exhaustion, as if the patentee made the sale itself. The result: The sale exhausts the patentee’s rights in that item. See Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U. S. 355, 362–363 (1893). 

(判決文第11-12頁)


5. 若被授權人銷售產品的行為落在授權的範圍外，那麼專利權人就沒有授權銷售，因此專利權沒有耗盡：

General Talking Pictures involved a fundamentally different situation: There, a licensee “knowingly ma[de] . . . sales . . . outside the scope of its license.” 304 U. S., at 181–182 (emphasis added). We treated the sale “as if no license whatsoever had been granted” by the patentee, which meant that the patentee could sue both the licensee and the purchaser—who knew about the breach—for infringement. General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 305 U. S. 124, 127 (1938).... General Talking Pictures, then, stands for the modest principle that, if a patentee has not given authority for a licensee to make a sale, that sale cannot exhaust the patentee’s rights.

(判決文第12-13頁)


6. 在美國國外銷售，專利權一樣耗盡 ... 原因跟著作權法一樣：

In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., we held that this “‘first sale’ [rule] applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made [and sold] abroad.” 568 U. S., at 525....

Applying patent exhaustion to foreign sales is just as straightforward. Patent exhaustion, too, has its roots in the antipathy toward restraints on alienation, see supra, at 6–8, and nothing in the text or history of the Patent Act shows that Congress intended to confine that borderless common law principle to domestic sales. In fact, Congress has not altered patent exhaustion at all; it remains an unwritten limit on the scope of the patentee’s monopoly.

(判決文第13-14頁)


7. 就算專利權人銷售產品時，明示 "保留專利權"，專利一樣耗盡 (產品在市場上流通時，容許專利權像鮣魚一樣吸附在賣出的產品上，違反了 "反對物權移轉限制原則 (principle against restraints on alienation)")：

這點值得注意。這個案子之前美國政府遞交了意見書給聯邦最高法院，認為若專利權人在境外銷售時，有明白表示保留專利權，那麼專利權就沒有耗盡。這個見解並未被聯邦最高法院接受：

Exhaustion does not arise because of the parties’ expectations about how sales transfer patent rights. More is at stake when it comes to patents than simply the dealings between the parties, which can be addressed through contract law. Instead, exhaustion occurs because, in a sale, the patentee elects to give up title to an item in exchange for payment. Allowing patent rights to stick remora-like to that item as it flows through the market would violate the principle against restraints on alienation. Exhaustion does not depend on whether the patentee receives a premium for selling in the United States, or the type of rights that buyers expect to receive. As a result, restrictions and location are irrelevant; what matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. 

(判決文第17-18頁)


注意事項


1. 注意專利授權條款中的限制，是 "對銷售的限制" (專利權仍然會耗盡)，還是 "對專利授權的限制" (專利權可能未耗盡)

以往在專利授權條款中，通常只會針對 "未付權利金" 的產品，明白約定未獲授權。這個條款讓專利權人可以對被授權人主張違約，也可以對被授權人或其客戶主張專利侵權。這種約定不是 "對銷售的限制" ，而是 "對授權的限制"。

往後專利權人可能會更傾向將 "對銷售的限制" 轉變成 "對授權的限制"，以避免專利耗盡的適用。比如說，專利權人在授權合約中，可能會要求被授權人通知其客戶需在產品上做某種標示，或通知客戶只能以特定方式使用產品。以後若違反此限制，專利權人可能會約定該產品即未獲授權，以便排除專利耗盡，讓自己除了對被授權人主張違約外，還可以對未標示或未依約使用的客戶主張專利侵權。

這會大幅提升專利授權合約的履約難度。當類似的條款出現，需留意若違反這個條款 (比如被授權人忘記通知客戶) 的效果是甚麼，會不會造成該產品未獲授權。在談授權合約的條款的時候，就必須注意這個問題，一方面跟專利權人協商，減少該類條款，另一方面對公司內部宣導與確認履約可能性。

2. 往後 "賣產品卻保留專利權" 的條款會沒有用

這....內行人都知道在講哪個公司吧。對沒錯，就是那個一直被反壟斷調查，合約準據法用美國法的公司。記得重談合約喔。

3. 重新考慮不同國家的差價策略

對品牌商而言，這是真品平行輸入本來就有的問題。只是現在又多了一個專利權耗盡的問題要考慮而已 -- 往後不能用專利權來阻擋平行輸入到美國了。想看看要用甚麼其他方法吧，不然全球定價或採購策略可能要調整了。


4. 重整產品 (refurbished product) 的商業模式會更活絡，甚至會有新模式出現

專利權人在出售產品後，對其主張專利權的難度提高。因此包括重整產品在內的二手商品市場應該會更活絡，不論是商業模式，還是能做的業務量，都會變更多了。相關廠商應該會很高興吧 -- 如果有想到這點的話。