PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED v. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-03)
德拉瓦州地院認為被告未侵害原告的US 6,814,921與US 6,866,812。原告不服上訴。上訴法院維持了地院的判決。
本案重點在於請求項用語 "extruded parison" 怎麼解釋。由於專利權人在說明書裡定義了parison的意思，所以即使被控產品的說明文件中表明其具有parison，地院仍認為被告的產品沒有侵權：
As seen in the images, Donghee’s own product literature refers to the plastic entering the flat die tool as a “parison.” But the district court correctly determined in its claim construction—accepting Plastic Omnium’s arguments—that the patentee gave the term “parison” a special definition, and the patents “do not use the term ‘parison’ [in] its conventional, plain and ordinary meaning.” .... Thus, the patentee’s definition of “parison” in the specification and as construed by the court—not Donghee’s product literature—controls whether the accused product falls withing the scope of the claim.(判決文第11-12頁)
此外，原告主張被告產品中的coextrusion head可對應到專利中所描述的die。但上訴法院認為，在專利說明書中，coextrusion head跟die兩個用語是分開使用，因此兩個不同名詞應該有不同意思，不接受原告的主張：
Plastic Omnium’s arguments rely heavily on recasting the “coextrusion head” in the accused system as a “coextrusion die,” and Plastic Omnium contends that the plastic melt flowing from the extrusion head and directly into the flat die satisfies the extruded parison limitation. Appellant Br. 40. But “extrusion head” and “die” as used in the asserted patents are distinct terms.... Thus, the claims require that the extrusion head and die are distinct components that the “parison” must pass through before it is split.
這些攻防過程都值得美國專利相關從業人員留意。
TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-05)
這個重要判決我們已經整理過了，請參考這邊。
IN RE: GREENSTEIN [OPINION - NONPRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-10)
PTAB認為Greenstein的申請案不適格。Greenstrein上訴，上訴法院維持了PTAB的決定。
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. ITC [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-12)
本案值得注意。本案是少見的，說明書的內容造成專利 "拒絕 (disavowal)" 了請求項原本有機會涵蓋的範圍。
ITC認為Techtronic Industries的車庫門侵害了US 7,161,319。Techtronic Industries不服上訴。上訴法院認為ITC針對請求項用語 "wall console" 的解釋錯誤，將全案發回。
本案關鍵在於，請求項本身並沒有提到wall console必須包括passive infrared
detector。但是上訴法院認為，說明書的內容造成了這個專利 "拒絕 (disavowal)" 了wall consoles缺乏passive infrared detector這個範圍。這導致在解釋請求項用語時，wall console必須包括passive infrared
detector：
We conclude that the ’319 patent disavows coverage of wall consoles lacking a passive infrared detector because the specification, in each of its sections, discloses as the invention a garage door opener improved by moving the passive infrared detector from the head unit to the wall console.
(判決文第10頁)
若對說明書的disavowal不熟悉者，可以看一下本案。本案技術不難，算是很好的入門判決。
AMGEN INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-16)
這是生物相似製劑訴訟。德拉瓦州地院認為被告Hospira侵害了原告的US 5,856,298，並判賠7千萬美金損害賠償。被告Hospira不服上訴。上訴法院維持了地院判決。
在眾多爭點之中，比較值得注意的，是Hospira能否主張35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)的避風港條款作為防禦方法。結論是不行，有興趣者可參考判決文第12-18頁。
BLACKBIRD TECH LLC v. HEALTH IN MOTION LLC [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-16)
原告Blackbird訴被告侵害其US 6,705,976。案子打了19個月後，Blackbird自己撤訴，並簽署了covenant not to sue。結果後來後來中加州地院裁定原告Blackbird需一美國專利法第285條支付被告律師費用美金363,243.80元。原告不服上訴，上訴法院維持了地院的裁定。
原告Blackbird訴被告侵害其US 6,705,976。案子打了19個月後，Blackbird自己撤訴，並簽署了covenant not to sue。結果後來後來中加州地院裁定原告Blackbird需一美國專利法第285條支付被告律師費用美金363,243.80元。原告不服上訴，上訴法院維持了地院的裁定。
關於285條的律師費，有來過我的講座的朋友，應該很熟悉吧。
CG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. FANDUEL, INC. [OPINION - NONPRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-17)
經過多方複審 (Inter partes review) 之後，PTAB認為原告CG Tech的RE39,818部分請求項因顯而易見而無效。原告不服上訴，上訴法院維持了PTAB的決定。
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-17)
PTAB在經過多方複審後，認為Chamberlain的US 7,196,611的請求項18-25因缺乏新穎性而無效。Chamberlain上訴，上訴法院維持了PTAB的決定。
FOX FACTORY, INC. v. SRAM, LLC [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-18)
在經過多方複審後，PTAB認為雖然原告Fox提供的前案揭露了US 9,182,027的系爭請求項的所有要件，但基於輔助性判斷因素 (secondary considerations)，請求項仍有效。原告上訴，上訴法院撤銷了PTAB的決定並發回。
本案關鍵在專利權人再主張輔助性判斷因素時的 “coextensiveness” requirement。基本觀念是：如果發明只是商業上的成功的機器或程序的一部分，那發明就沒有跟商業成功coextensive，專利權人無法推定發明跟商業成功有連結：
... That is, presuming nexus is appropriate “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” .... Conversely, “[w]hen the thing that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process,” the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus.
(判決文第10頁)
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC v. WILLOWOOD, LLC [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-18)
本案重要。這個案子有點複雜，討論了著作權法與專利法的多個爭點。其中關於專利法比較重要的，是在上訴法院在本案中，做出了 "基於美國專利法271(g)的侵權不需要製程由單一實體完成" 的見解：
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC v. WILLOWOOD, LLC [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-18)
本案重要。這個案子有點複雜，討論了著作權法與專利法的多個爭點。其中關於專利法比較重要的，是在上訴法院在本案中，做出了 "基於美國專利法271(g)的侵權不需要製程由單一實體完成" 的見解：
Thus, because the statutory language as a whole is clear that practicing a patented process abroad cannot create liability under § 271(g), whether that process is practiced by a single entity is immaterial to the infringement analysis under that section.(判決文第23頁)
這是一個法律解釋學的問題。對法律解釋有興趣的，請見判決文第22-30頁。
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. TREND MICRO INCORPORATED [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-19)
趨勢科技被IV告專利侵權，打贏官司後向法院請求准許依美國專利法第285條向IV請求律師費。德拉瓦州地院說，這個案子一部分是exceptional (IV在訴訟過程中，專家證人改變說法)，所以准許趨勢科技請求一部分的律師費。
IV不服上訴。上訴法院說，我看不懂到底地院有沒有按照正確的觀念做出判決，所以發回更審。重點是沒有所謂 "案子的一部份是exceptional" 這個觀念：
For example, in Rembrandt Technologies, we explained that after determining that a case is exceptional, a court must award fees in an amount that “bear[s] some relation to the extent of the misconduct.” In re RembrandtTechs. LP Patent Litig., 899 F.3d 1254, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). But in all such cases we have required a finding of an exceptional case—not a finding of an exceptional portion of a case—to support an award of partial fees. See, e.g., id.; Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Because the district court did not find that the case overall was exceptional, we vacate its finding of exceptionality under § 285 and remand for an analysis under the proper legal standard.
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. [OPINION - NONPRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-20)
PTAB在經過多方複審後，認為SIPCO的US 7,697,492的部分請求項因缺乏新穎性與進步性而無效。SIPCO上訴，上訴法院基於PTAB對 "scalable address" 的解釋有誤，撤銷了PTAB的決定，並將本案發回。
ARCTIC CAT INC. v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. [OPINION - NONPRECEDENTIAL] (2019-12-23)
Arctic在多方複審過程中，請求對專利權人Polaris的員工進行additional discovery，被PTAB拒絕。嗣後PTAB認為Arctic並未證明Polaris的US 9,217,501顯而易見。Arctic不服上訴，認為PTAB應該准許他進行additional discover，以及認為Polaris的專利請求項應該是顯而易見。
上訴法院維持了PTAB的決定。關於additional discovery，在去年七月修改的trial guide中有詳細規定，有來參加過我的講座的朋友應該有印象 (不過當時這部分不是講座重點就是)。相關的重點在判決文第8頁中間。
至於顯而易見的判斷，上訴法院認為其實主要是Arctic自己搞砸：Arctic主張前案解決了某個問題，因此可以跟另一個前案結合，但Arctic卻沒有提出充分的證據跟論理來證明前案有解決那個問題。相關的論述請參考判決文第10-11頁。
德拉瓦州地院認為Persion Pharma的US 9,265,760因顯而易見跟不滿足書面描述要件而無效。Persion Pharma不服上訴。上訴法院維持了地院關於顯而易見的判決，因此沒有討論專利是否滿足書面描述要件。
本案值得注意的，是法院整理了關於 "固有特徵 (inherent characteristic)" 的重點：(1) 固有性不能只以 "或然率" 或 "可能性" 建立，(2) 在某組狀態下可能造成某個結果，尚不足以建立固有性，(3) 只有當請求項的限制條件是 "必須出現"，或是 "前案明示揭露了元件組合的自然結果"，才能以固有性主張請求項的限制條件是顯而易見，(4) 如果揭露的內容足以顯示所教示的操作的自然結果會造成某功能的執行，那麼該揭露的內容足以使該功能具備固有性：
Inherency, however, is a “high standard,” that is “carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” PAR, 773 F.3d at 1195. Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities,” and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581 (emphasis added) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939); see also In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533–34 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Rather, inherency renders a claimed limitation obvious only if the limitation is “necessarily present,” or is “the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR, 773 F.3d at 1195–96; see also Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (relying on inherency where the claims recited “a property that is necessarily present” in the prior art). “If . . . the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient” to render the function inherent. Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581 (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939)).
(判決文第12頁)
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。