供應商擔保責任 v. 多方複審時限問題：Wi-Fi案與Westerngeco案整理

聯邦巡迴上訴法院近期連續在兩個判決中，討論供應商與客戶間的擔保責任約定，是否會引發多方複審需在訴狀送達後一年之內提起的時限問題，值得相關法務智財人員留意。以下快速整理兩個判決的重點，供大家參考。

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. (Fed. Cir., April 20, 2018)

Westerngeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (Fed. Cir., May 7, 2018)
關於多方複審的一年時限的相關整理 (Fairsky Patent Memo, April 14, 2013)

35 U.S.C. § 315(b):

An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.... 

背景事實

2010年Ericsson在東德州地院起訴包括D-Link在內的多家廠商專利侵權後，把專利移轉給Wi-Fi。地院起訴的三年後，在2013年，Broadcom於美國專利商標局提起了三件多方複審程序 (inter partes review)，主張Ericsson訴D-Link的專利無效。

接手專利的Wi-Fi主張依美國專利法第315(b)條，由於系爭專利在地院已經送達訴狀超過一年，基於Broadcom的擔保義務，地院的被告又是Broadcom的利害關係人 (privy)，所以Broadcom已經超過一年的時限，不能提出多方複審程序了。(這個案子的前情提要請參考這邊。)

Westerngeco案是相同的狀況。2009年Westerngeco在南德州地院起訴ION專利侵權。超過一年之後，PGS (Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.) 在美國專利商標局提起了六件多方複審程序 (inter partes review)，主張Westerngeco的專利無效。Westerngeco同樣主張依美國專利法第315(b)條，由於PGS是ION的利害關係人，因此已經超過一年的時限，不能提出多方複審程序了。

(順便一提：Westerngeco案已經上訴到聯邦最高法院了，不過是基於另一個爭點：專利權人能否基於在美國境外的所失利益，依美國專利法271(f)請求損害賠償。)


"Privy"

聯邦巡迴上訴法院在檢視了立法過程與法律體系後，認為國會在法條中用了Privy這個字，又不定義它，意思就是要採用普通法的概念。然後，"Privy" 在美國的普通法中，已經擴張到如果非當事人基於任何原因成立一事不再理，那該非當事人就是privy：

“The term ‘privity,’ however, has also come to be used more broadly, as a way to express the conclusion that nonparty preclusion is appropriate on any ground.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894 n.8 (2008)

(Westerngeco案判決文第12頁)

美國專利商標局在其 "審理實務指南 (Trial Practical Guide)" 中指出， "privy" 沒有一個通用的普通法定義。也就是說，分析 "privy" 其實是在決定 "privy跟當事人的關係是否足夠接近到兩者應該同樣受審理結果與相關的禁反言拘束"：

The Trial Practice Guide further recognizes that “privity” has no universally-applicable common law definition.... “Privity is essentially a shorthand statement that collateral estoppel is to be applied in a given case.” Id. (quoting Cal. Physicians’ Serv., 163 Cal. App. 4th at 1521). That is, the privity analysis seeks to determine “whether the relationship between the purported ‘privy’ and the relevant other party is sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.”

 (Westerngeco案判決文第12頁)

由於privy不是訴訟當事人，所以在考慮非當事人不再理的風險時，還必須考慮他沒有充分且公平地訴訟的機會，因此有正當程序的問題：

Because nonparty preclusion risks binding those who have not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the Supreme Court has cautioned that there is a general rule against nonparty preclusion, subject to certain exceptions.

 (Westerngeco案判決文第13頁)

基於以上，美國聯邦最高法院曾經在Taylor 案 (Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)) 中，非窮盡地整理出非當事人不再理的考量要點：

The Supreme Court in Taylor identified a nonexhaustive list of considerations where nonparty preclusion would be justified. Id. at 894–95. These considerations include:

(1) an agreement to be bound;

(2) preexisting substantive legal relationships between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment (e.g., “preceding and succeeding owners of property”);

(3) adequate representation by someone with the same interests who was a party (e.g., “class actions” and “suits brought by trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries”);

(4) assumption of control over the litigation in which the judgment was rendered;

(5) where the nonparty to an earlier litigation acts as a proxy for the named party to relitigate the same issues; and

(6) a special statutory scheme expressly foreclosing successive litigation by nonlitigants.

 (Westerngeco案判決文第13頁)


供應商是客戶的Privy嗎？

這是重點了，直接講結論：這個問題的關鍵在 "供應商是否會受客戶的訴訟結果拘束"。負擔保義務或分攤訴訟費用都不足以讓供應商變成Privy，有權控制訴訟則很可能會。

在Wi-Fi案中，首先，Wi-Fi主張PTAB採用了錯誤的法律標準，要求Broadcom必須能夠控制地院的訴訟才是Privy。Wi-Fi認為依照聯邦最高法院的見解，這應該僅是其中一個條件而已。

然而，法官認為PTAB知道聯邦最高法院的見解。PTAB這樣做只是在回應Wi-Fi自己的主張而已：

Wi-Fi mischaracterizes the Board’s decisions regarding section 315(b). Contrary to Wi-Fi’s contention, the Board recognized that there are a number of circumstances in which privity might be found, including when the nonparty controlled the district court litigation. The Board’s decision to focus on that ground was in response to the specific arguments that Wi-Fi raised on the privity issue.

 (Wi-Fi案判決文第10頁)

在法院檢視了PTAB的推論是否有誤的過程中，有一點值得注意：PTAB認為，擔保付款跟低度參與訴訟不足以建立privity：

Turning to Wi-Fi’s argument, the Board stated that “[w]hen a patent holder sues a dealer, seller, or distributer of an accused product, as is the case at hand, indemnity payments and minor participation in a trial are not sufficient to establish privity between the non-party manufacturer of the accused device and the defendant parties.”

 (Wi-Fi案判決文第11頁)

其次是個程序問題：Wi-Fi認為PTAB不應該拒絕其額外證據發現 (Additional Discovery) 的聲請。Wi-Fi請求額外證據發現的原因，是想看Broadcom對D-Link案被告的擔保條款，以作為Broadcom是D-Link案被告的Privy的佐證。

多方複審程序中的額外證據發現，依據37C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)，有個條件是聲請人必須說明額外證據發現是 "in the interests of justice” 。這個 "in the interests of justice” 的範圍很狹窄，通常是只限於依些比較小的證據，或是一些特殊的狀況。PTAB認為W-Fi One對此並未提供充分的說明。這邊值得注意的，是PTAB認為 "依擔保條款支付訴訟費用通常不會建立privy" (這點上面已經提過了：

It then engaged in a detailed analysis of the issue of privity as applied in the context of section 315(b), from which it concluded that “[t]o show privity requires a showing that Broadcom would be bound to the outcome of the Texas Litigation,” and that “[t]o be bound, in normal situations, Broadcom must have had control over the Texas Litigation.” Under that standard, the Board concluded that “[p]aying for trial expenses pursuant to indemnity normally does not establish privity or control,” and that Wi-Fi’s “evidence and arguments fail to show that the sought-after discovery would have more than a mere possibility of producing useful privity information.”

 (Wi-Fi案判決文第16頁)

最後，法官認同PTAB的見解：Wi-Fi的證據只顯示了Broadcom關於專利侵權與否的利益與其客戶一致，以及Broadcom至少與兩個D-Link案的被告有擔保約定。但這些證據不足以顯示Broadcom應該受訴訟結果拘束：

Wi-Fi’s evidence showed that Broadcom’s interests as to the issue of infringement were generally aligned with those of its customers, and that Broadcom had indemnity agreements with at least two of the D-Link defendants. But the evidence did not show that Broadcom had the right to control that litigation or otherwise participated in that litigation to the extent that it should be bound by the results.

 (Wi-Fi案判決文第18頁)

在Westerngeco案中，Westerngeco主張ION是PGS的供應商，而且有合約義務擔保PGS，所以ION是PGS的privy。但這個主張沒有被聯邦巡迴上訴法院的法官採納。

法官認為，在多方複審程序進行的過程中，PTAB已經看過了ION與PGS之間在2008年簽署的主採購合約 ("Master Purchase Agreement")。合約中雖然約定ION的子公司 "應擔保 (shall indemnify)" PGS，但只約定如有人主張專利侵權，ION的子公司可以修改或更換產品，沒有約定ION的子公司有義務幫PGS打官司、負擔訴訟費用、負擔損害賠償、或發動專利無效程序：

In particular, the 2008 Master Purchase Agreement between PGS and an ION subsidiary stated that the ION subsidiary “shall indemnify” PGS. J.A. 200. But it did not specify the meaning of “indemnify” as requiring ION or its subsidiary to pay for any litigation defense expenses or for any damages related to infringement. Rather, the provision included options by the ION subsidiary to modify or replace the equipment if an infringement claim was made against PGS. Id. After reviewing the entire provision as a whole, the Board found that the evidence did not show any obligation of ION to defend PGS from a patent infringement lawsuit, reimburse or pay for a lawsuit, cover any damages liability for any adverse patent infringement verdict against PGS, or initiate an invalidity challenge in one or more fora.

 (Westerngeco案判決文第17-18頁)

法官認為這個擔保的約定，並不會讓ION成為PGS的privy。


實務建議

首先是供應商對客戶的擔保條款的設計考量。針對客戶的專利侵權訴訟，在擔保條款中必須加上 "及時通知" 的條件。這是先假設日後供應商會被認定是客戶的privy，提多方複審有一年的時限。由於多方複審的大部分工作，都必須在提出之前完成，如果不及時被通知，供應商的準備時間會不夠。

若考慮降低日後被認定是privy的可能性，根據上面這兩個案子，僅約定退換貨或分擔訴訟費用，還不至於會被認定是privy。但如果約定供應商可以控制客戶的訴訟，那就可能會了。關於這點須特別留意。

當然，擔保條款的設計有諸多考量。有些供應商會覺得，費用是我出，訴訟當然由我控制，不然讓別人控制訴訟，費用我出，萬一他亂花錢怎麼辦？若基於這個考量，在擔保條款中讓供應商可以控制訴訟，那上面對供應商的即時通知就更重要了。訴訟發生後，智權部門的處理與應變速度也會是關鍵。

其次是訴訟策略。如果供應商不是客戶的privy，那麼客戶在被送達訴狀的一年之後，若還想對專利提多方複審，可以考慮請供應商提，然後客戶再提。此時客戶提的多方複審，會被併入 (consolidated) 到供應商的多方複審中，跟著供應商的多方複審一起進行，實質上達到客戶提多方複審的目的。這個做法在Westerngeco案中有提到，值得參考。

請供應商提的原因包括：供應商在專利侵權這件事情上的利益，很有可能跟客戶一致；在依擔保條款必須分擔客戶訴訟費用的情況下，提起多方複審有可能可以暫停客戶的訴訟以便降低訴訟費用；供應商也很有可能比客戶更熟悉專利相關的技術，因此可以找到更好的前案。這些都是供應商提多方複審會比客戶提更好，供應商也有可能會配合的原因。不過這邊需要注意，供應商所提的多方複審，不能被認定是 "受客戶控制"。這樣可能會讓供應商所提的多方複審會受一年的時限影響而無法提出。

最後，作為訴訟當事人的客戶，在被告後如何與上游廠商配合，會是重要課題。簡單的流程如下：

1. 請專利工程師快速分析專利請求項是否跟零組件相關。
2. 若是，請採購提供該零組件的供應商清單。
3. 請法務調閱與這些供應商簽署的合約，並檢視其中的專利侵權擔保條款。
4. 儘速發函聯絡供應商。
5. 若有必要，簽署共同利益合約，請我方律師聯絡供應商的律師。
6. 儘速與供應商討論包括多方複審在內的訴訟策略問題。

這個流程看來簡單，實際上不簡單。除了涉及公司內部的多個部門之外，實務上若多個客戶被告，涉及多個不同國家的供應商，甚至涉及 "上游的上游" 的供應商 (即零組件供應商與被告的客戶無直接交易關係)，就有可能變得非常複雜。只能說不論是客戶或是供應商，這都高度考驗訴訟的管理能力，值得老闆與智財法務主管們提早建置處理能力，以便屆時快速因應。