Casebook: Fundamental Concepts

Validity Analysis


Eligibility


Patent-eligible subject matter

美國專利法第101條規定了四種專利適格標的。以下選的兩個案例，是法院認為沒有落入四種適格標的的例子。

35 U.S.C. 101
In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346 (Fed. Cir., September 20, 2007)
Digitech Image Tech's v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F. 3d 1344 (Fed. Cir., July 11, 2014)

Judicially-created Exceptions

美國專利法的法定不適格標的，不是規定在法條中，而是由法院以判決創設的，包括自然法則、自然現象、以及抽象概念。關於這點，2014年美國聯邦最高法院的Alice案是必看：日後看到所謂 "Alice兩步測試法" 就是從這個案子來的。

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (June 19, 2014) [Key Case]
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (June 13, 2013)
Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (March 20, 2012)
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (June 28, 2010)


Utility


專利法上的實用性很好滿足，因此較少討論。美國關於實用性，採實質實用性 (substantial utility) 標準。

35 U.S.C. 101
Brenner v. Manson, 383 US 519 (March 21, 1966) [Key Case]

The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

(Brenner at 534.)

In re Fisher, 421 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir., September 7, 2005)


Novelty


喪失新穎性的基本觀念，是單一前案揭露了所有請求項的要件。但有些罕見的例外狀況，前案在沒有揭露請求項所有要件的情況下，仍然使請求項喪失新穎性。我們就此例外狀況，選了判決供參。

35 U.S.C. 102
Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F. 3d 1376 (Fed. Cir., March 25, 2015) [Key Case]

A prior art reference can only anticipate a claim if it discloses all the claimed limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim." ... However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it "d[oes] not expressly spell out" all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would "at once envisage" the claimed arrangement or combination.

(Kennametal at 1381.)


Obviousness


顯而易見性的判斷非常複雜，不確定性的風險很高。關於這點，2007年美國聯邦最高法院的KSR案是必讀案例：不知道KSR案的，不能判斷美國專利的顯而易見性。

35 U.S.C. 103
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (April 30, 2007) [Key Case]
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 US 1 (February 21, 1966)
部落格文章：Memo re: Obviousness


Written Description


美國專利法關於書面要件的重點，在於專利說明書寫的內容，能夠讓熟習該項技術者認為發明人在申請日已 "掌握 (had possession) " 了發明。關於此觀念，我們選了2010年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的全院庭審Ariad Pharma案。請在該案判決文中，搜尋關鍵字 "had possession"。

35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F. 3d 1336 (Fed. Cir., March 22, 2010) (en banc) [Key Case]
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555 (Fed. Cir., June 7, 1991)


Enablement


據以實現要件的關鍵，在於專利說明書寫的內容，能夠讓熟習該項技術者不需要 "過度實驗 (undue experimentation) " 即可實現請求項的發明。關於此觀念，請於我們選的Key Case中，搜尋關鍵字 "undue experimentation" 。在判決文中有個小標題就是這個詞。

35 U.S.C. 112(a)
In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 731 (Fed. Cir., September 30, 1988) [Key Case]

Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.... Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation have been summarized by the board in In re Forman. They include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.

(In re Wands at 737.)


Definiteness


關於請求項的明確性，美國聯邦最高法院在2014年更改了判斷標準。現在的標準是 "合理確定 (reasonable certainty) " 標準，這個標準比舊的標準難達到。相關內容請直接看判決文。

在美國，請求項明確性有個特別的，所謂 "手段附加功能 (means-plus-function) 用語" 的明確性問題。關於這點其實可以直接看更後面關於請求項的解釋，我們為手段附加功能用語選的Williamson案，它是2015年聯邦巡迴上訴法院全院庭審判決。

35 U.S.C. 112(b)

The "reasonable certainty" standard

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) [Key Case]

[W]e read § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

(Nautilus at 2129.)

Indefinite of a means-plus-function clause

AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, 504 F. 3d 1236 (Fed. Cir., October 12, 2007)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 and ¶ 6, a means-plus-function clause is indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381-82 (Fed.Cir.1999).

(AllVoice at 1241.)


Infringement Analysis


Claim Construction


請求項用語的解釋是侵權分析的第一步。Phillips案是經典判決。這個判決重要到有些專利的書籍，直接把美國請求項用語的解釋標準稱為 "Phillips standard"。

手段附加功能用語的解釋較為複雜。就此我們選的案例，是2015年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的全院庭審判決Williamson案。不過其實多看幾個案例還是比較好。

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) [Key Case]
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (January 20, 2015)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 US 370 (April 23, 1996)
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F. 3d 1576 (Fed. Cir., July 25, 1996)

Means-plus-function

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F. 3d 1339 (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2015) (Part II.C.1 en banc) [Key Case]
Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 785 F. 3d 616 (Fed. Cir., May 6, 2015)
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent, 639 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir., February 18, 2011)
Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Intern. Game Tech., 521 F. 3d 1328 (Fed. Cir., March 28, 2008)
In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F. 3d 1189 (Fed. Cir., February 14, 1994) (en banc)


Direct Infringement


直接侵權的重點，在於單一行為人實施了請求項的全部要件。就方法專利各步驟有可能是不同行為人實施的狀況，則必須考慮各步驟的實施是否可歸責 (attributable to ) 單一行為人。關於這點，2014年美國聯邦最高法院的Akamai案是必看案例。

至於均等論，我們選了2002年聯邦最高法院Festo案，其就可抗辯的禁反言 (rebutable estoppel) 提出了可預見性測試法 (foreseeability test)，絕對是經典案例。

35 U.S.C. 271 (a)

Burden of proof

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014)

We hold that, when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee to establish that there is no infringement, the burden of proving infringement remains with the patentee.

(Medtronic at 846.)

Extraterritorial limitation to method claim

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F. 3d 1282 (Fed. Cir., August 2, 2005)

We therefore hold that a process cannot be used "within" the United States as required by section 271(a) unless each of the steps is performed within this country.

(NTP at 1318.)

Divided infringement

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, 786 F. 3d 899, 903 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2015) [Key Case]

[D]irect infringement liability of a method claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) exists when all of the steps of the claim are performed by or attributed to a single entity—as would be the case, for example, in a principal-agent relationship, in a contractual arrangement, or in a joint enterprise.

(Akamai at 903.)

Doctrine of Equivalent

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 US 722 (May 28, 2002) [Key Case]

A patentee's decision to narrow his claims through amendment may be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim.... There are some cases, however, where the amendment cannot reasonably be viewed as surrendering a particular equivalent. The equivalent may have been unforeseeable at the time of the application; the rationale underlying the amendment may bear no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question; or there may be some other reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the insubstantial substitute in question. In those cases the patentee can overcome the presumption that prosecution history estoppel bars a finding of equivalence.

(Festo at 740.)


Inducement Infringement


引誘侵權的重點，在行為人在明知會侵害專利權的情況下，仍進行了引誘行為，造成被引誘者直接侵權。

由於廠商在海外的銷售行為，也有可能成立引誘侵權，風險相對較高，因此我們選了三個Key Case。除了Akamai案外，美國聯邦最高法院2015年的Commil案以及2011年的Global-Tech案是必看：前者確認專利無效的信念不能阻卻引誘侵權的主觀要件成立，後者跟專利風險管理人員需要留意的 "willful blindness" 有關。

35 U.S.C. 271(b)
Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) [Key Case]
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015) [Key Case]

Invalidity is an affirmative defense that “can preclude enforcement of a patent against otherwise infringing conduct.” 6A Chisum on Patents § 19.01, p. 19–5 (2015). An accused infringer can, of course, attempt to prove that the patent in suit is invalid; if the patent is indeed invalid, and shown to be so under proper procedures, there is no liability. See i4i, supra, at –––– – ––––, 131 S.Ct., at 2247–2248. That is because invalidity is not a defense to infringement, it is a defense to liability. And because of that fact, a belief as to invalidity cannot negate the scienter required for induced infringement.

(Commil at 1929.)

Willful blindness

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA, 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) [Key Case]


Contributory Infringement


輔助侵權的法條蠻長的，要件很多。我們為三個要件各選了一個案例，並選了美國聯邦最高法院的Aro I案為經典案例，因為該案提出的 "修理 v. 重建 (repair v. reconstruction)" 觀念太重要。

35 U.S.C. 271(c)

Distinguish between "repair" and "reconstruction"

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 US 336 (1961) ("Aro I") [Key Case]

Mere replacement of individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successively, is no more than the lawful right of the owner to repair his property. Measured by this test, the replacement of the fabric involved in this case must be characterized as permissible "repair," not "reconstruction."

(Aro I at 346.)

Knowledge of infringement required

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964) ("Aro II")

It is only sale of a component of a patented combination "knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent" that is contributory infringement under the statute.

(Aro II at 488.)

Existence of direct infringement required

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972)

No non-infringing use required

Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980)


Extraterritorial Activity


如果有在美國設廠生產零組件並外銷到美國境外，那麼美國專利法271(f)就必須注意。它涉及於美國境外 (對你沒看錯，在美國境外) 組裝侵害美國專利的產品的相關法律責任問題。

35 U.S.C. 271(f)
Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734 (2017) [Key Case]

The question before us is whether the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). We hold that it is not.

(Life Tech. at 739.)

如果271(f) 成立，專利權人可以就美國境外的所失利益請求損害賠償。

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U. S. ____ (2018)  [Key Case]

Under the Patent Act, a company can be liable for patent infringement if it ships components of a patented invention overseas to be assembled there. See 35 U. S. C. §271(f)(2). A patent owner who proves infringement under this provision is entitled to recover damages. §284. The question in this case is whether these statutes allow the patent owner to recover for lost foreign profits. We hold that they do. 

(Slip. Op. at 1.)


Other Defenses


Patent Exhaustion


專利耗盡指專利權人所銷售，或經專利權人同意而銷售的物品，專利權人不能對銷售的後手主張專利權。美國近年實務上澄清了三個關於專利耗盡的重點： (1) 專利耗盡採全球耗盡 (Lexmark案)， (2) 專利耗盡及於方法請求項 (Quanta案)，以及 (3) 何種情況算是專利權人同意銷售 (Quanta案)。我們選了2017年聯邦最高法院的Lexmark案作為關鍵判決，並提供重點整理給大家參考。Quanta案也很重要，建議一併閱讀。

Impression Products v. Lexmark Intern., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) [Key Case]
2017年Lexmark案的重點整理
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008)

For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item. In this case, we decide whether patent exhaustion applies to the sale of components of a patented system that must be combined with additional components in order to practice the patented methods. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the doctrine does not apply to method patents at all and, in the alternative, that it does not apply here because the sales were not authorized by the license agreement. We disagree on both scores. Because the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents, and because the license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhausted the patents. 

(Quanta at 2113.)


Implied License


默示授權指因專利權人的聲明或行為，使他人合理推論出專利權人已授權。以默示授權作為防禦方法的案例很多，原本最重要的案件是1927年聯邦最高法院的De Forest案，不過我們選的Key Case是Winbond案，它整理了基於衡平禁反言主張默示授權的要件。其他情況可能要做法律研究，看看哪個判決先例比較接近。

Winbond Electronics Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 262 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir., 2001)  [Key Case]

An implied license may arise by equitable estoppel, acquiescence, conduct, or legal estoppel.... An implied license by equitable estoppel requires proof that: (1) the patentee, through statements or conduct, gave an affirmative grant of consent or permission to make, use, or sell to the alleged infringer; (2) the alleged infringer relied on that statement or conduct; and (3) the alleged infringer would, therefore, be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its claim. 

(Winbond at 1374.)

De Forest Radio Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 47 S.Ct. 366 (1927).


Inequitable Conduct


在專利法中，不正行為指的是專利權人當初在申請專利的過程中，未盡誠實善意義務 (duty of candor and good faith) 揭露資訊，造成後續取得的專利權無法主張。構成不正行為的要件有二：(1) 隱匿的資訊具有實質性 (materiality) ，會影響請求項的可專利性，以及 (2) 申請人有欺瞞的意圖 (intent to deceive)。

經典案例當然是2011年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的Therasense案。這個全院庭審判決變更了實質性的判斷標準，改成現行的 "but-for" 標準。

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F. 3d 1276 (Fed. Cir., 2011) (en banc) [Key Case]

This court holds that, as a general matter, the materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is but-for materiality. When an applicant fails to disclose prior art to the PTO, that prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.

(Therasense at 1291.)


Patent Misuse


專利濫用指專利權人運用專利權的方式超出了專利權能的範圍，以至於不當地影響了市場秩序或公眾利益等。專利濫用的狀況有好幾種，近來的熱門議題，是專利濫用的情況違反了反托拉斯法。
我們選擇Princo案這個聯邦巡迴上訴法院的全院庭審判決作為Key case的原因，是這個判決文把之前聯邦最高法院與巡迴上訴法院關於專利濫用的幾個關鍵案例通通整理了一遍，而且內容是之前熱門的光碟片授權案，相對來講應該比較好理解。

Princo Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 616 F. 3d 1318 (Fed. Cir., 2010) (en banc) [Key Case]

The doctrine of patent misuse is thus grounded in the policy-based desire to "prevent a patentee from using the patent to obtain market benefit beyond that which inheres in the statutory patent right." .... It follows that the key inquiry under the patent misuse doctrine is whether, by imposing the condition in question, the patentee has impermissibly broadened the physical or temporal scope of the patent grant and has done so in a manner that has anticompetitive effects.... Where the patentee has not leveraged its patent beyond the scope of rights granted by the Patent Act, misuse has not been found.

(Princo at 1328.)

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015)
Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, 85 S.Ct. 176 (1964)
Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct. 402 (1942)
Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 51 S.Ct. 334 (1931)
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co., 243 U.S. 502, 37 S.Ct. 416 (1917)

我們順便把美國司法部跟聯邦貿易委員會2017年出版的 "智財權授權反托拉斯指南" 一併附上供參：

US DoJ and FTC's Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (2017)


Laches


在2017年聯邦最高法院的SCA Hygiene案之後，權利怠惰已經不再是專利侵權的防禦方法了。
SCA HYGIENE v. First Quality Baby Products, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) [Key Case]
2017年SCA Hygiene案的重點整理


Equitable Estoppel


衡平禁反言的經典案例，當然是1992年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的全院庭審判決 AC Aukerman案。要學衡平禁反言的基本概念，請直接看該案判決文，特別是第1028頁的Summary。

AC Aukerman Co. v. RL Chaides Const. Co., 960 F. 2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc) [Key Case]


Remedy


Damages


損害賠償的相關案例太多，我們從法條出發，針對三個基本觀念，分別選了三個Key Cases：

首先關於所失利潤 (lost profit)，關鍵案例是1978年第六巡迴上訴法院的Panduit案，其建立了 經典的 "Panduit factors"。另外，聯邦巡迴上訴法院1995年的全院庭審Rite-Hite案也可以參考，它整理了關於lost profits的基本觀念與相關案例。

接著關於合理權利金 (reasonable royalty)，想都不用想，當然就是Georgia-Pacific案了，其中列出的15個因素，所有計算專利合理權利金的判決文都必定考量。

最後關於設計專利的損害賠償，必須注意聯邦最高法院2016年在Samsung v. Apple一案中，關於美國專利法第289條 "article of manufacture" 的解釋。

至於許多人關心的，工業標準專利的權利金計算，目前理論跟實務都還在發展中。我們推薦的是2014年年底聯邦巡迴上訴法院的Ericsson v. D-Link案，它處理了 (1) Georgia-Pacific factors的運用，(2) 多零組件產品的分配 (apportionment) 的運用、以及 (3) 工業標準專利的權利金堆疊 (royalty stacking) 問題。

35 U.S.C. 284

Lost profit

Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F. 2d 1152( 6th Cir. 1978) [Key Case]

To obtain as damages the profits on sales he would have made absent the infringement, i. e., the sales made by the infringer, a patent owner must prove: (1) demand for the patented product, (2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes, (3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of the profit he would have made.   

(Panduit at 1156.)

Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F. 3d 1538(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) 
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 84 S.Ct. 1526 (1964)

Reasonable Royalty

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y., 1970) [Key Case]

Design Patent Damages 

35 U.S.C. 289
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016)  [Key Case]
關於Samsung v Apple案的重點整理

Standard-Essential Patent ("SEP") Royalty

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F. 3d 1201 (Fed. Cir., 2014)


Notice Requirement


通知要求是美國專利法對損害賠償的限制之一。最常見的問題，是何謂美國專利法下的 "通知"？這個問題都在我們選的關鍵案例Amsted Indus案中找到答案：(1) 必須是專利權人的積極聯絡 (affirmative communication)，(2) 必須有特定的侵權指控 (而不是只指出有專利存在)，以及 (3) 有特定的被控侵權產品。

35 U.S.C. 287

Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,  24 F. 3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) [Key Case]

For purposes of section 287(a), notice must be of "the infringement," not merely notice of the patent's existence or ownership. Actual notice requires the affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device.

(Amsted Indus at 187.)

Willfulness and Enhanced Damages


美國法院關於惡意侵害他人專利，依美國專利法第284條，法院可將損害賠償酌增最多三倍。關於這點2016年美國聯邦最高法院的Halo案是必看案例。我們整理過Halo案的重點，在此也一併附上。

35 U.S.C. 284
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)  [Key Case]

關於Halo案的整理

Injunction


關於美國專利訴訟的禁制令，2006年美國聯邦最高法院的eBay案是關鍵案例：永久禁制令 (permanent injunction) 也需要考量基於衡平法長期實務發展出來的四個因素 (在此之前，專利權人若勝訴，法院幾乎都會准永久禁制令)：(1) 不可回復的損害，(2) 法律救濟無法填補此損害，(3) 雙方難處衡量，以及 (4) 公眾利益。

若對於這四個因素實務上怎麼操作有興趣，我把eBay案發回到地方法院後，地方法院的判決文也一併附上。裡面有法院審酌四個因素的內容供參考。另外一案是2015年聯邦巡迴上訴法院的Apple案，其重點是說明專利跟損害之間的 "一般關聯要求 (causal nexus requirement)。"

至於暫時禁制令 (preliminary injunction)，選給大家參考的是聯邦巡迴上訴法院的Amazon案。暫時禁制令一樣有四個要素需要審酌：(1) 不可回復的損害，(2) 具勝訴可能性，(3) 雙方難處衡量，以及 (4) 公眾利益。(選這件案子的原因，是因為當年這個 "1-click" 的軟體專利訴訟太有名，值得再拿出來看一下。)

Permanent Injunction

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 US 388 (2006)  [Key Case]

Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies the four-factor test historically employed by courts of equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 (eBay at 390.)

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

(eBay at 391.)

MercExchange, LLc v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Virginia 2007)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 801 F. 3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Apple案之前的重點整理

Preliminary Injunction

Amazon. com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble. com, Inc., 239 F. 3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

As the moving party, Amazon is entitled to a preliminary injunction if it can succeed in showing: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the injunction's favorable impact on the public interest.

(Amazon at 1350.)


Attorney Fees


依美國專利法285條，就 "例外案件 (exceptional case) " 法院可判敗訴方須支付合理律師費給勝訴方。關於這點，聯邦最高法院2014年的Octane案改變了以往的判斷標準，絕對是必讀關鍵案例，其重點是 "一個案件是不是例外案件，由地方法院依個案整體情況裁量"。

35 U.S.C. 285Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)

We hold, then, that an "exceptional" case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District courts may determine whether a case is "exceptional" in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.