Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 18:18:54
Document Index: 575345627

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 2', '§ 112', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 132', '§ 120', '§ 102', '§ 132']

Taiwan Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter - Summer 2009 | Morrison & Foerster LLP - JDSupra
*In re Bilski: Will The Supreme Court Change The New Rules for Patenting Business Methods Established By The Federal Circuit?...2
*Federal Circuit Deals Blow to Qualcomm and Adds to the Law Governing Standard- Setting Organization Participants ...8
*In the Eye of the Beholder: The Essentiality Analysis and the Patent Misuse Defense ...12
*Impact Looms Large in Federal Circuit Decision: USPTO and Patent Applicants Still Locked in Showdown Following Tafas v. Doll ...16
*Intellectual Property Practice News ...22
Download PDF 2009 /民國九十八年夏In this Issue Established By Federal Circuit? 12 16 Circuit Following Tafas v. Doll 22 目錄Bilski案：最高法院是否會修改聯邦巡迴上訴法院為商業方法專利制定的新規則？ 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院： 高通公司敗訴─標準制定組織成員面臨新增法律13 仁者見仁，智者見智： 必要性分析以及專利權濫用之抗辯17 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決影響巨大： Tafas對Doll案後，美國專利商標局和專利申請人仍處於一決雌雄的僵局狀態23 智慧產權業務新聞Taiwan Intellectual Property Newsletter 2009年夏季臺灣智慧產權通訊mofo.from the Managing Editor this inaugural issue, introduce our Taiwan Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter. share you court decisions impact companies, We hope our newsletter as own company’s legal and business strategies. global law firm an unparalleled presence in and technology clients throughout & Foerster is well-positioned to provide counsel to Taiwanese these trying economy recover. the backbone of the international will the way. will help Taiwanese companies the recovery comes. this issue, three recent Federal Circuit We address discuss a decision from the Broadcom/Qualcomm litigation of remedies available when companies fail to disclose their IP to Finally, we address opinion Office’s rulemaking happy to report secured by Morrison & LLP. Trade and Funai, one in the District our client Evapco, the Eastern of Texas Pioneer. you will Foerster’s Taiwan IP Quarterly Newsletter informative. will monitor the latest developments keep wishes, Hadjis, Morrison Foerster 我們在此向大家推出《2009年夏季臺灣智慧產權通訊》創刊號。在本期及今後的通訊中，我們將與您分享美國智慧產權法律的發展動態及重要法院判決，這些判決將影響所有在智慧產權密集型行業中競爭的公司（如貴公司）。我們希望本所的《通訊》能協助您指導貴公司的法律及商務戰略決策。作為一家在亞洲擁有強大經營規模且科技企業客戶遍佈全球的國際性律師事務所，美富毫無疑問具有為臺灣公司提供法律顧問和相關資訊的明顯優勢。儘管當前許多行業舉步維艱，但我們堅信全球經濟終將復甦。作為國際經濟支柱的科技產業將在這條復甦之路上起主導作用。我們希望本所通訊能為臺灣公司提供實用資訊，使其在復甦到來之時不但能夠繼續參與全球經濟的競爭，而且可以從競爭中獲利。在本期通訊中，我們首先討論最近由聯邦巡迴上訴法院頒佈的三項判決。我們將先談Bilski案的判決及其對軟體專利的影響。然後我們會論及博通/高通訴訟案的判決。當一公司沒有將其智慧產權即時披露給相關標準制定組織，該判決對公司在其智慧產權遭受侵權時可獲得的救濟的範圍進行了限制。最後，我們將討論法院在Tafas一案中關於美國專利局之規章制定權的判決意見書。除此之外，我們很慶幸彙報美富最近取得的四次勝訴，分別為：代表客戶Spansion和Funai在美國國際貿易委員會取得的兩次勝訴；為客戶Evapco在康涅狄格州地方法院取得的一次勝訴；以及為客戶Pioneer在德克薩斯州東區法院取得的一次重大勝訴。我們期許美富的《2009年夏季臺灣智慧產權通訊》能為您提供有用資訊。我們將繼續追蹤智慧產權領域的最新發展，並即時為您提供最新動態。順致商祺！ 美富律師事務所合夥人韓明山主編按Taiwan Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter 2009??????????? Summer 2009 /??????? Note from the Managing Editor 2 In re Bilski: Will The Supreme With this inaugural issue, we introduce our Taiwan Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter. In this Court Change The New and future editions, we will share with you trends and important court decisions that impact companies, Rules for Patenting Business like yours, that compete in IP-intensive industries. We hope that you find our newsletter helpful as you Methods Established By The guide your own company’s legal and business strategies. Federal Circuit? As a global law firm with an unparalleled presence in Asia and technology clients throughout the world, 8 Morrison & Foerster is particularly well-positioned to provide counsel and information to Taiwanese Federal Circuit Deals Blow companies. to Qualcomm and Adds to the Law Governing Standard-While these are trying times for many industries, we know that the world economy will recover. Setting Organization Technology, as the backbone of the international economy, will lead the way. We hope that this Participants information will help Taiwanese companies to be well-informed to continue compete in the global 12 economy and benefit when the recovery comes. In the Eye of the Beholder: In this issue, we discuss three recent Federal Circuit decisions. We address the Bilski decision and its The Essentiality Analysis and affect on software patents. We also discuss a decision from the Broadcom/Qualcomm litigation that the Patent Misuse Defense defines the scope of remedies available when companies fail to disclose their IP to standard setting 16 organizations. Finally, we address the Tafas opinion on the U.S. Patent Office’s rulemaking authority. Impact Looms Large in Federal Circuit Decision: Further, we are happy to report four recent victories secured by Morrison & Foerster LLP. Two before USPTO and Patent Applicants the U.S. International Trade Commission, on behalf of clients Spansion and Funai, one in the District of Still Locked in Showdown Connecticut for our client Evapco, and another major victory in the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of Following Tafas v. Doll our client Pioneer. 22 We hope you will find Morrison & Foerster’s Taiwan IP Quarterly Newsletter informative. We will Intellectual Property continue to monitor the latest developments to keep you updated. Practice News Best wishes, Alexander J. Hadjis, Morrison & Foerster LLP ?? 3 ??? Bilski?:?????? ???????? ?????????«2009???????????»??????????????,????? ?????????? ??????????????????????,???????????????????? ??????? ?????(????)????????«??»???????????????????? 9 ??????????: ???????????????????????????????????,??????? ??????-???? ??????????????????????? ?????????? ????????????,?????????????????????????????? 13 ????????????????????????????????,?????????? ????,????: ??????????????,??????????? ??????????? ??????,??????????????????????????????Bilski???? ???? ????????????????????/??????????????????????? 17 ???????????,?????????????????????????????? ??????????? ????,????????Tafas??????????????????????? ??????: ????,??????????????????,???:????Spansion?Funai???? Tafas?Doll??,??? ?????????????;???Evapco?????????????????;????? ??????????? Pioneer???????????????????? ??????????? 23 ???????«2009???????????»????????????????????? ???????? ???????,???????????? ????! www.mofo.com ????????????? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter June Court granted in was whether “a ‘process’ must or transform particular or thing test), 2 this of patentable before the Federal in the context of the so-method patent.” In Bilski Federal articulated a ortransformation” putting method patents to rest. scholars system a necessary evil: a limited the Needless to say, its boundaries. it has long been established phenomenon cannot patented. Court touched issue ago in the a trilogy” of cases and computer software,3 Court be but of a does otherwisepatentable subject matter ineligible 1998, Federal issued in method Street Bank v. Signature Financial 4 to the State Street that “produces tangible the wake of the State Street decision, saw a of business last 5 All more or related of operating some aspect by State Street. backdrop, the Federal issued re last year. Circuit replaced with test.6 ortransformation” test, a process is patent-eligible if: article into a different state 7 Applying the test method patent in affirmed USPTO’s question unanswered: a patentable a some elements are those do not or change of the claim in meaningful challenge? ortransformation” initially in the Court After the trilogy, many patent In re Bilski: Will The Supreme Court Change New Rules for Patenting Business Established By The Federal Circuit? Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer In re Bilski: Will The Supreme Court Change The New Rules for Patenting Business Methods Established By The Federal Circuit? On June 1, the Supreme Court granted to algorithm and computer software,3 explicitly replaced the “tangible result” certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s the Supreme Court made it clear that test adopted in State Street with the decision in In re Bilski1. One of the abstract algorithms cannot be patented “machine-or-transformation” test.6 certified issues was whether “a ‘process’ by themselves, but the existence of Under the “machine-ormust be tied to a particular machine an algorithm in a claim does not transformation” test, a claimed or apparatus, or transform a particular automatically render otherwiseprocess is patent-eligible if: “(1) it article into a different state or thing patentable subject matter ineligible for is tied to a particular machine or (‘machine-or-transformation’ test), to be patent protection. apparatus, or (2) it transforms a eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § In 1998, the Federal Circuit issued a particular article into a different state 101.”2 Last year, this issue of patentable long-awaited decision regarding the or thing.”7 Applying the test to the subject matter was before the Federal patentable-subject-matter issue in the business method patent application Circuit in the context of the so-called context of business method patents in at issue in In re Bilski, the Federal “business method patent.” In its 132-State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Circuit affirmed USPTO’s rejection. page In re Bilski opinion, the Federal Group.4 According to the State Street Circuit articulated a “machine-or-The Bilski decision, however, left a court, anything that “produces a transformation” test, arguably putting fundamental question unanswered: useful, concrete and tangible result” most business method patents to What machine or what transformation rest. is eligible subject matter for patent is enough to transform an abstract THE BACKDROP OF FEDERAL protection. method into a patentable subject CIRCUIT DECISION IN BILSKI In the wake of the State Street decision, matter? Would the combination of Many scholars view the patent system the USPTO saw a flood of business a method with a general computer as a necessary evil: a limited monopoly method patent applications, a trend suffice? If a patent claim is drafted is available to create the incentive that continued up until last year.5 All with some additional elements that are for innovation. Needless to say, the of these patents are more or less related indisputably a “machine” but those monopoly has its boundaries. In terms to a method of operating some aspect machine elements do not go to the of subject matter eligible for patent of an economic enterprise. heart of the innovation or change the protection, it has long been established scope of the claim in any meaningful that natural phenomenon and abstract The flood was believed to be triggered way, would those claims survive a ideas cannot be not by any major innovation, but patented. patentable subject matter simply by the new intellectual property challenge? The last time the U.S. Supreme Court market prompted by State Street. Déjà vu? Indeed, the “machine-ortouched on this issue was almost 30 Against this backdrop, the Federal transformation” test was initially years ago in the context of software Circuit issued In re Bilski last year. established in the Supreme patents. In a “trilogy” of cases relating Court In the opinion, the Federal Circuit trilogy. After the trilogy, many patent morrison & foerster llp — page 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第3頁臺灣智慧產權通訊Bilski案：最高法院是否會修改聯邦巡迴上訴法院為商業方法專利制定的新規則？ 6月1日，最高法院批准了調卷令申請，將對聯邦巡迴上訴法院關於Bilski案所做判決進行復審1。被列為將由最高法院解決的問題之一是： 一項“工序”（process）若根據《美國法典》第35篇第101條申請專利，是否必須與某特定機器或設備關聯，或可將某特定物品轉變至不同形態或轉變為不同物品2。去年，聯邦巡迴上訴法院曾就所謂的“商業方法專利”審理過其專利適格性問題。在長達132頁的Bilski案判決意見書中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院明確提出“機器或轉變”的檢驗標準，有可能導致大多數商業方法專利無效。聯邦巡迴上訴法院對Bilski案所做判決的背景許多學者都認為專利制度有其本身無法革除的弊病，但依然期望專利制度所賦於的有限壟斷會促發創新發明。當然，壟斷是有一定範圍的。就有資格獲得專利保護的標的物而言，自然現象和抽象概念不具有專利適格性在美國法律中由來已久。美國最高法院最近一次就軟體專利涉及上述話題已是30 年前的事。在與演算法及電腦軟體相關的“三部曲”案件中3，最高法院明確表示， 抽象演算法本身不具專利申請資格，但如果運算法則在權利要求中，它並不會導致權利要求中其他具備專利適格性的標的物自動喪失獲得專利保護的資格。1998年，在State Street Bank訴Financial Group案4中， 聯邦巡迴上訴法院就商業方法專利頒佈了一項期待已久的專利適格性判決。根據Street案的法庭意見， 任何能“產生有用、具體且有形結果”的方法均具有專利適格性。在State Street案的判決頒佈後，美國專利商標局收到了如潮水般的商業方法專利申請，直至去年這一趨勢方才告一段落5。所有這些專利或多或少與金融類企業某些方面的經營方式有關。人們認為，導致商業方法專利申請大量湧現的原因並不是任何重大創新的出現，而僅僅是由State Street案所激發的智慧產權市場產生的效果。聯邦巡迴上訴法院就在這種形勢下去年頒佈了Bilski 案的判決。判決意見書中， 聯邦巡迴上訴法院明確地以“機器或轉變”檢驗標準取代State Street案採納的“有形結果”檢驗標準6。根據“機器或轉變”檢驗標準，所主張的方法如能滿足以下要求，即具有專利適格性：（1）與某特定機器或設備相關聯，或（2）該方法可將某特定物品轉變至不同形態或轉變為不同物品7。聯邦巡迴上訴法院然後將該檢驗標準應用於Bilski案中的商業方法專利申請，維持了美國專利商標局駁回專利申請的裁定。不過，Bilski案的判決留下了一個尚無答案的基本問題：何種機械或轉變才能足以將某種抽象方法轉變為具有專利適格性的標的物？是否只要將方法與通用電腦相結合就足以證明該方法具有專利適格性？如所起草的專利權利要求包含有一些毋庸置疑屬於“機械”的成份，那麼該等權利要求是否就???????? Bilski?:?????????????? ????????????????? 6?1?,???????? ???????????? ????State Street???? ????,??????? ???????????30 ??????????? ?????Bilski????? ???????????? ???????????? ???? 1??????? ??????“???”? ??????????Bilski ???????????: ?? 3,????????, ???????????, ??“??”(process)? ???????????? ??????????? ??«????»?35?? ???,???????? ?“?????”???? 101?????,????? ?????,?????? ??State Street????“? ??????????,? ???????????? ???”????6? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????2?? ???????? ??“?????”??? ?,?????????? ?,?????????? ???“??????”? 1998?,?State Street Bank? ????,??????? ???????????? Signature Financial Group?4?, ?:(1)???????? ??132??Bilski????? ???????????? ????,?(2)???? ??,????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???“?????”?? ??????????? ?????????7??? ???,???????? State Street??????, ???????????? ????????? ???“???????? ?????Bilski????? ????”??????? ??????,????? ?????????Bilski? ????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ?State Street?????? ???????????? ?,?????????? ??,Bilski???????? ??????????,? ???????????? ??????????:?? ???????????? ?,?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???? 5???????? ????????????? ??,???????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????????? ??????,????? ????????????? ???????????? ????,??????? ????????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????“??”?? ??????????,? ?,??????????? ??????? — ?3? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter inserted tangentially elements into software claims subject It is expected – method claims. typically methods for banking, Some do computers. Circuit are starting In less Interferences than patents relying on Bilski. not to stop in computerrelated Circuit, decision, claim in Classen Inc. IDEC.8 for the en Court, Michel’s for is patent-eligible A Is Patent-Eligible Subject Matter If It Is Tied to Article State Circuit noting has process” from These Circuit the “storehouse no person right. As claims that uses fundamental claims that foreclose applications of these principles are patenteligible perhaps the Circuit Court, definitive whether a process only a particular is surely patent-eligible machine or apparatus, or thing. language decisions, Newman leave for some processes Instead, relying on the absence Court ortransformation test” was the sole eligibility under § 101, at least until Court decide[set aside this test to patent-that satisfy the “machineor-test,” the Federal overruled or rejected several Circuit did not restrict the patent-eligibility under § 101, even if the helpful in drawn fundamental principle. rejected patenteligibility for processes. Court to the position representing “technology” refused rules advocated by various amici exclude software, business categories from patent-eligibility. Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer prosecutors inserted tangentially the term “process” in § 101 by such qualifiers in later Supreme Court relevant physical elements into software excluding laws of nature, natural opinions, held that the “machine-orclaims to avoid the patentable subject phenomena, and abstract ideas from transformation test” was the sole test matter problem. It is expected that they patent-eligibility. These “fundamental for determining patent-eligibility of would do the same thing again after principles,” as the Federal Circuit a process under § 101, at least until Bilski -this time in connection with called them, are part of the “storehouse the Supreme Court “decide[s] to alter business method claims. After all, the of knowledge” to which no person or perhaps even set aside this test to methods are typically implemented can claim an exclusive right. As a in computers, such as methods accommodate emerging technologies.” for result, process claims that pre-empt e-commerce, banking, tax compliance, In limiting patent-eligibility to etc. Some of the broader methods substantially all uses of a fundamental do processes that satisfy the not even rely on principle are not patent-eligible, but “machinecomputers. or-transformation test,” the Federal process claims that only The Federal Circuit and the USPTO, foreclose Circuit overruled or rejected several particular applications of these however, are starting to move in fundamental principles are patent-other tests. Most importantly, the a different direction. In less than eligible under § 101. Federal Circuit held that the “useful, two months after Bilski, the Board concrete, and tangible result” test of Patent Appeals and Interferences In perhaps its clearest statement, the adopted by State Street did not rejected claims in no less than four Federal Circuit held: software patents relying on Bilski. In adequately restrict the patent-eligibility addition, the ramification of Bilski The Supreme Court, however, for processes under § 101, even if the does not seem to stop in computer-has enunciated a definitive test test was helpful in indicating whether related patents. The Federal Circuit, to determine whether a process a claim was drawn to a fundamental relying on its own Bilski decision, claim is tailored narrowly enough principle or practical application of recently invalidated a medical to encompass only a particular such a principle. diagnostic method claim in Classen application of a fundamental Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.8 Further, the Court rejected various principle rather than to pre-empt categorical restrictions on patent-THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT EN the principle itself. A claimed BANC DECISION IN BILSKI process is surely eligibility for processes. The Court patent-eligible refused to adopt the position that Writing for the en banc Court, Chief under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a Judge Michel’s opinion focused on particular machine or apparatus, or would limit patent eligibility to the proper standard for determining (2) it transforms a particular article processes representing “technology” or whether a process is patent-eligible into a different state or thing. the “technological arts,” concluding subject matter under § 101. that these terms were too ambiguous The Court rejected qualifying language and ever-changing. a Process is Patent-eligible in earlier Supreme Court decisions, subject Matter if it is Tied to a which Judge Newman relied on in Finally, the Court refused to adopt per Particular Machine or Transforms dissent, that would leave the door open se rules advocated by various amici a Particular article into a Different state or Thing. for patent-eligibility for some processes that would exclude software, business The Federal Circuit began by noting that did not meet this test. Instead, methods, and other categories of that the Supreme Court has narrowed the Court, relying on the absence of processes from patent-eligibility. morrison & foerster llp — page 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第5頁臺灣智慧產權通訊毫無疑問取得了專利適格性─ 即使那些機械成份與發明核心無關，也沒有以任何有意義的方式改變權利要求的範圍？ 似曾相識？確實，“機械或轉變”檢驗標準最初是由最高法院的三部曲確立的。在三部曲之後，為避免出現軟體專利適格性的問題，許多專利代理人將無關緊要的相關物理成分插入軟體權利要求中。在Bilski案後，專家預期專利代理人會繼續這麼做─只不過這次是針對商業方法權利要求。這些商業方法畢竟主要是通過電腦實施的，例如與電子商務、銀行交易、稅務合規等相關的方法。有些涉及範圍較廣的方法甚至無須依賴電腦。不過，聯邦巡迴上訴法院和美國專利局似乎與專利代理人觀點相反。在Bilski案後不到兩個月內，以Bilski案為依據，專利局的復審委員會至少駁回了四項軟體專利。此外，Bilski案所影響的範圍也似乎超出了電腦類專利。日前，聯邦巡迴上訴法院根據Bilski案判決Classen Inc.訴Biogen IDEC 一案8中的醫療診斷方法權利要求無效。聯邦巡迴上訴法院全院庭審對Bilski案的判決Michel首席法官為全院庭審起草了判決意見書，該意見書主要關注的問題是在確定某種方法是否具有專利適格性時，應採用何種適當標準。如果某種方法是與某特定機器關聯的，或可將某特定物品轉變至不同形態或轉變成不同物體，該方法即系具有專利適格性的標的物。聯邦巡迴上訴法院首先指出，最高法院將自然規律、自然現象和抽象概念排除在具有專利適格性的標的物之外，縮小了第101條中“工序”（process）一詞的範疇。聯邦巡迴上訴法院將此稱為“基本原理”，指任何人不得對於自然規律、自然現象和抽象概念主張專有權，它們是公有“知識庫” 的一部分。因此，實際會涵蓋某項基本原理全部用途的方法類權利要求不具有專利適格性，但僅涵蓋這些基本原則某些特定應用的方法類權利要求在第101條項下具有法律適格性。在其做出的或許是最為明確的聲明中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為： 為確定方法（工序）類權利要求範圍是否僅限於某基本原理的特定應用，而非涵蓋該項原理本身，最高法院已闡明確切的檢驗標準。在下列情況下，所主張的方法肯定具有第101條項下的專利適格性：(1) 該方法是與某特定機器或設備關聯的，或該方法可將某特定物品轉變至其他形態或轉變成其他物體。聯邦巡迴上訴法院否定了最高法院以往判決中對此標準使用的限制性用語。這些用語可能會使某些不符合該檢驗標準的方法具有專利適格性，而Newman法官正是根據此類用語提出異議的。鑒於最高法院後來做出的判決意見書中沒有任何限定條件， 聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，至少在最高法院“為適應新興技術而決定修改，甚至取消該檢驗標準”之前，“機器或轉變檢驗標準”是確定一項方法是否具有第101條項之專利適格性的唯一檢驗標準。在將方法專利適格性限於滿足“機器或轉變檢驗標準”的過程中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院駁回或否定了若干其他檢驗標準。最重要的是，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，State Street案所採用的“有用、具體且有形的結果”之檢驗標準，並未充分限制第101條項下方法專利的適格性，即使該檢驗標準有助於說明某一權利要求涉及的是某項基本原理還是該項原理的實際應用。此外，聯邦巡迴上訴法院否定了對各種方法專利適格性的各類絕對限制。法院拒絕採納將專利適格性限於代???????? ????????????-???????????? (2) ??????????? ????????????? ?,?????????? ???????????? ??,?????????? ??? ???????????? ???????????? ????,??????? ???????????? ???????,“???? ???????????? ???????????? ?”??????????? ????,??????? ???????????? ????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??,?????????? ???????????? ??????????? ?????,??????? ?,?Newman?????? ?,?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????Bilski? ???????????? ??????????? ?,??????????? ???????????, ???,????101?? ????-???????? ??????????,? “??”(process)??? ????????????? ??????“????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????,???? ???“????”,?? ?,??????????? ?????”??,“?? ???????????? ????????????? ???????”???? ???????????? ????????????? ????????101?? ?,?????“???” ??????? ???????????? ???????,???? ?? ??,?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????Bilski?????? ???,???????? ?“?????????”? ??,?Bilski????,?? ???????????? ???,????????? ????????????? ??????101????? ???????????? ????????,Bilski?? ?????? ???????,????? ????????????? ???????????? ?????,State Street??? ??????,????? ????,??????? ??“?????????? ?????Bilski???Classen ???: ?”?????,????? Immunotherapies, Inc.?Biogen IDEC ??101????????? ??8?????????? ?????(??)??? ??,?????????? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????,???? ????????????? ???????????? ??????,????? ???? ?Bilski???? ???????????? ????,??????? ??,????????? Michel?????????? ????101?????? ???????????? ???????,???? ???:(1) ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????,? ??????????? ??????? — ?5? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter Scope and Application Remains Unclear. of processes a rejecting However, it also raises makes that patenteligible to further limit eligibility use meaningful and “The Bilski admitted not require any specific the Court to future cases claim a This open particularly methods” computer-still Court though it did “also that transform as well as represent patenteligible. By that transform legal obligations, risks” not did not address between these categories only involved “such as the process did not result of any physical patenteligible THE SUPREME RULES Circuit Bilski method patent application. re Ferguson led to a The by Bilski in Judge that the on this a all relevant precedents, as was concurred in Court its opinion in Bilski, shed more light on the patentability issue. ------------------Cir. 08-964 (Granted June are Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 Parker Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial business tripled while the total total business method patent 6 Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954 (citing Benson, S. at Flook, S. at 589 n.9, as well as Cochrane v. 94 U.780, 788 8 Classen Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, docket ------------------Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer The scope and application of the On the “transformation” prong of business method patent application. Machine-or-Transformation Test the “machine-or-transformation However, In re Ferguson led to remains unclear. a test,” the Court’s discussion still left split opinion. The majority affirmed The Bilski decision clarifies the many open questions. The Court that the machine-or-transformation patent-eligibility of processes under first noted that the “transformation test established by Bilski is the only § 101 by adopting a single test and must be central to the purpose of the dispositive test in deciding the explicitly rejecting a variety of other claimed process,” though it did not patentability, while Judge Newman tests. However, it also raises many explain what it meant to be “central” disagreed that test was the only questions about how this test should to the process. The Court also held applicable test on this issue. According be applied in practice. that processes that transform physical to Judge Newman, a broadside The opinion makes clear that a objects or substances, as well as overturning all relevant precedents, as process that is tied to a machine electronic data that represent physical the majority did, was not warranted. or that transforms an article into and tangible objects, are patent-She concurred in the judgment on a a different state or thing is patent-eligible. By contrast, the Court held different ground. eligible under § 101. However, the that processes that transform “abstract Court proceeded to further limit constructs such as legal obligations, Let’s hope when the Supreme Court patent-eligibility by noting that organizational relationships, and issues its opinion in Bilski, it will shed “the use of a specific machine or more light on the patentability issue. business risks” are not patent-eligible. transformation of an article must The Court did not address where the impose meaningful limits on the line fell between these two categories 1 In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). claim’s scope” and “must not merely of transformations. 2 Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964 (Granted June 1, be insignificant extra-solution 2009). The Court concluded that Bilski’s 3 The three cases are Gottschalk v. Benson, activity.” The Court failed to 409 process only involved “ineligible U.S. 63 (1972), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 explain what it meant by imposing (1978), and Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 transformations,” such as the (1981). “meaningful limits” or “insignificant transformation of legal obligations. 4 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. extra-solution activity.” SFiignnaantcuirael Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Because the process did not result in Cir. 1998). Moreover, because Bilski admitted that “the transformation of any physical 5 The number of official business method his claim did not require any specific object or substance, or an electronic patent in Class 705 at USPTO has been tripled in the last decade while the total number machine or apparatus, the Court signal representative of any of patent applications remained roughly the left “to future cases the elaboration physical same. However, the total number of busi-object or substance,” it was not patent-ness method patent applications constitutes of the precise contours of machine eligible under § 101. merely about 1% of all patent applications. implementation,” including “whether 6 Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954 (citing Benson, 409 WILL THE SUPREME COURT U.S. at 70, Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, Flook, or when recitation of a computer 437 U.S. at 589 n.9, as well as Cochrane v. CHANGE THE RULES suffices to tie a process claim to Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1876)). a ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL particular machine.” This open CIRCUIT? 7 Id. 8 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen question is particularly significant, Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit IDEdCo,cket no. 2006-1634. since most “business methods” of any had the chance to apply the newly value are computer-implemented. established Bilski test to another morrison & foerster llp — page 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第7頁臺灣智慧產權通訊表“技術”或“科技”方法的觀點，斷定這些用詞太過模糊且變幻不定。最後，法院拒絕採用各法庭顧問主張的單獨定性規則─即禁止軟體、商業方法以及其他門類方法具有專利適格性。“機器或轉變檢驗標準”的範圍及其應用仍不明確。通過採用單一檢驗標準並明確否決其他各種檢驗標準，Bilski案的闡明了第101 條項下“方法”的專利適格性。不過，對於在實踐中如何應用該檢驗標準，該項判決也引起了許多問題。法院的判決意見書表明，與某機器關聯或可將某項物品轉變至其他形態或轉變成其他物體的方法，將具有第101條項下的專利適格性。但是，法院指出“對某特定機器的使用或對某項物品的轉變必須對權利要求的範圍施加有意義的限制”，並且“不得僅為無關緊要的，與解決困難無關的額外活動”，進而對專利適格性做了進一步限制。法院沒有解釋其提出的“有意義的限制” 或“無關緊要的，與解決困難無關的額外活動”究竟是什麼意思。另外，因為Bilski承認其權利要求不需要任何具體機器或設備，法院將“機器實施的精確範圍”留待“在以後案件中詳加說明”，包括“在權利要求中，僅僅將方法與電腦關聯是否及如何能滿足將某項方法與某特定機器關聯的要求”。這個有待解決的問題尤為重要，因為多數具有任何價值的“商業方法”均是通過電腦實施的。就“機器或轉變檢驗標準” 的“轉變”方面而言，法院的討論結果亦留下了許多有待解決的問題。法院首先指出， “對於所主張的方法而言，轉變必須是該方法之核心內容” ，但其並未解釋方法的“核心” 究竟指什麼。法院還認為，如同可轉變有形物體或物質的方法，可轉變代表有形物體的電子資料之方法也具有專利適格性。反之，法院認為用於轉變“法律義務、組織關係和商業風險等抽象概念”的方法不具有專利適格性。法院沒有說明兩類轉變之間的明確界限。法院的結論為，Bilski的方法僅包含“無適格性的轉變”， 如對法律義務的轉變。因為該方法沒有導致“任何有形物體或物質的轉變，或導致代表任何有形物體或物質的電子信號的轉變”，所以該方法不具有第101條項下的專利適格性。最高法院是否會改變聯邦巡迴上訴法院確立的規則？ 今年初，聯邦巡迴上訴法院有一個機會將新確立的Bilski檢驗標準應用於另一起商業方法專利申請。不過，Ferguson案卻導致法官們意見出現分歧。多數意見認為由Bilski案確立的機器或轉變檢驗標準系確定方法專利適格性的唯一決定性檢驗標準，但Newman法官不認為該檢驗標準是確定專利適格性問題的唯一適用標準。根據Newman法官的意見，法庭沒有充分的根據推翻所有以往相關判例（而多數派正是那樣做的）。基於不同的理由她在判決中表示同意判決結果。讓我們一起期待最高法院對Bilski案做出最終判決時，能闡明方法專利之適格性問題。------------------Bilski案，《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第545 卷第943頁（聯邦巡迴上訴法院2008年）。Bilski訴Doll，訴訟記錄第08-964號（2009 年6月1日准予）。這三起案件分別為Gottschalk訴Benson [409 (1972)]、Parker訴Flook [437 US 1978)]以及Diamond訴Diehr [450 US 175 1981)]。Street Bank & Trust Co.訴Signature Group, Inc., 《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第149卷第1368頁（聯邦巡迴上訴法院2008年）。過去十年裡，儘管在美國專利商標局進行的專利申請總量大致與十年前相同，第705類正式商業方法專利的數量卻增加了兩倍。不過，商業方法專利申請總量仍僅佔所有專利申請的1%。Bilski案：《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第545卷第954頁（引證了Benson案(409 US 70)、Diehr案(450 US at 192)、Flook 案(437 US n.9)以及Cochrane訴94 US 780, 788 (1876))）。同上。8 Classen Inc.訴Biogen IDEC（訴訟記錄第2006-1634號）。------------------???????? ?“??”?“??”?? ??????”??“?? ???,????????? ???,???????? ????????”,?? ?????????Bilski?? ???????? “??????,???? ????????????? ???????????? ??????,Ferguson??? ??,?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????-?? ??????”????? ?????Bilski?????? ????????????? ?????????,?? ????????????? ??????????? ?????????“?? ???????????? ??”?????????? ??,?Newman????? “?????????”? ???????????? ??????????? ?“?????????” ????????????? ?“??”????,?? ??????????? Newman?????,??? ????????????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????????, ???(????????? ?,Bilski??????101 “??????????,? ?)??????????? ???“??”????? ????????????” ??????????? ????,??????? ,?????????“? ????????,??? ?” ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? Bilski????????,?? ?,??????????? ??????????,?? ????,???????? ???????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????,????? 1 Bilski?,«??????»????545 ????????????? ??943?(????????2008?)? ???,????101??? ???“???????? 2 Bilski?Doll,?????08-964?(2009 ?????????,??? ???????????”? ?6?1???)? ????????????? 3 ????????Gottschalk?Benson [409 ? “?????????? US 63 (1972)]?Parker?Flook [437 US 584 ???????????? ????????????? (1978)]??Diamond?Diehr [450 US 175 (1981)]? ??? ????????????? 4 State Street Bank & Trust Co.?Signature ?”,??“??????? Financial Group, Inc., «??????»? ??????,Bilski??? ???149??1368?(??????? ??,?????????? ?2008?)? ???“???????”, 5 ?????,???????????? ??”,????????? ???????????? ???????????????,? ???????????? 705???????????????? ???????“???? ?????,??????????? ?????“??????” ?????????1%? ????????,??? ?“?????,????? 6 Bilski?:«??????»???? ???????????? 545??954?(???Benson?(409 US ???????”????? at 70)?Diehr? (450 US at 192)?Flook ???????”,??? ??? ?(437 US at 589 n.9)??Cochrane? ??????101????? Deener(94 US 780, 788 (1876)))? ??,??Bilski???? ????? 7 ??? 8 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.?Biogen ???????????? IDEC(?????2006-1634?)? ???????????? ???,???“??? ??????????? ??????? — ?7? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter Circuit a to implied estoppel as to of The and confirmed standardsetting based standardsetting their rights process; of and that undisclosed patents if the standardsetting This is in in strategy. Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Circuit to its the standards discussions. was (SSO) created as and Sector (ITU-the directive of creating free compression H.Circuit had its intellectual because it them during standardsetting compliant devices. set forth Technologies (Cir. Circuit of Qualcomm’s its IPR three independent sources: SSO’s of the general created 1017. Of Circuit with court’s if unambiguously the disclosure obligation, of the IPR with disclose Qualcomm, IPR policy referred of associated with” the Federal concluded disclose reasonably to at 1017-18. Circuit Circuit Deals Blow to Qualcomm and to the Law Governing Standard-Setting Participants Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer Federal Circuit Deals Blow to Qualcomm and Adds to the Law Governing Standard-Setting Organization Participants The Federal Circuit recently The JVT was a standard-setting to disclose its IPR could originate concluded that the actions of a organization (SSO) created as a from three independent sources: participant in a standard-setting combined effort of the International (1) the clear language of the SSO’s organization may give rise to implied Organization for Standardization, IPR policy, (2) ambiguity in the waiver and equitable estoppel as the International Electrotechnical language of the IPR policy coupled defenses to accusations of patent Commission (ISO/IEC), and the with the general understanding of the infringement. The court further participants, or (3) the IPR policies of International Telecommunication developed and confirmed the the parent organizations that created Union Telecommunication jurisprudence surrounding standard-the SSO at issue. Qualcomm, 548 Standardization Sector (ITU-T) setting activity based estoppel, and F.3d at 1012-1017. Of particular with the directive of creating a held that participants in standard-note, the Federal Circuit agreed with single royalty-free baseline standard setting organizations may have a duty the district court’s conclusion that for video compression technology. to disclose their patent rights during even if the language of the JVT’s the standard-setting process; that Qualcomm, 548 F.3d 1008, 1013. IPR policy did not unambiguously silence constitutes a breach of this The standard was eventually referred create the disclosure obligation, the duty; and that undisclosed patents to as H.264. language of the IPR coupled with the may be deemed unenforceable against The Federal Circuit determined that JVT participants’ understanding of any adopters of the standardized Qualcomm had contravened its duty the policies imposed a duty to disclose technology, even if the adopter did on all participants. Qualcomm, 548 to disclose its intellectual property not participate in the standard-F.3d at 1016. rights (IPR) because it failed to setting activities. This is a significant disclose them during the standard-Although the JVT IPR policy referred development in the law that any party setting process. Due to this conduct, to the disclosure of intellectual must consider in its litigation strategy. the court held that Qualcomm’s property rights “associated with” any In Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., patents were unenforceable against standardization proposal or “affecting 548 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the use” of JVT work, the Federal any H.264 compliant devices. the Federal Circuit upheld the Circuit concluded that Qualcomm’s unenforceability of two Qualcomm Expanding on the analysis set forth in duty to disclose only extended to Rambus Inv. v. Infineon Technologies patents due to Qualcomm’s failure those rights that “reasonably might be to disclose its patent rights while AG, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003), necessary” to practice the standard. participating in the Joint Video the Federal Circuit concluded that Qualcomm, 548 F.3d at 1017-18. Team (JVT) standards discussions. the genesis of Qualcomm’s duty The Federal Circuit explained that morrison & foerster llp — page 8 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第9頁臺灣智慧產權通訊美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院最近作出決定，認為標準制定組織成員（包括所有參與者） 的某些行為可能導致默示棄權（implied waiver）及衡平禁反言（equitable estoppel） ，從而使侵犯專利權一方可以對指控作出有效抗辯。法院進一步闡述並確立了以標準制定行為為基礎的禁反言法律體系，並且認為標準制定組織的各個成員可能在制定標準的過程中，有責任主動披露其專利權；亦認為緘默則構成違反此責任；還認為，無論該使用者當初是否參與標準制定，未被披露的專利將不可對任何使用標準技術者強制執行。這樣重大的法律變化對任何企業的訴訟策略都將有很大影響。在美國高通公司(Qualcomm 訴美國博通公司(Broadcom 一案中(《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第548卷第1004 頁) (聯邦巡迴上訴法院2008 年)，聯邦巡迴上訴法院確認高通公司的兩項專利不可強制執行，原因是高通公司在參與視頻聯合工作組（Joint Team) 的標準討論時未能披露其專利權。視頻聯合工作組是由國際標準化組織(International Organization Standardization)、國際電子技術委員會(International 及國際電信聯盟電信標準化部門(International Sector) 共同設立的標準制定組織，旨在設立統一的、並免除專利金的視訊壓縮技術基準。高通公司案(《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第548卷第1013頁)。該基準後來被稱為H.264標準。聯邦巡迴上訴法院做出判決，認為高通公司未能在制定標準的過程中披露其智慧產權，該行為已經抵觸其披露責任。由此，法院認為高通公司不可對任何符合H.264 標準的裝置強制執行其專利。通過對Rambus Inv. 訴Infineon AG 一案（《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第318卷第1081頁)（聯邦巡迴上訴法院2003年) 的分析進行擴充與詳細說明，聯邦巡迴上訴法院決定，高通公司披露其智慧產權的責任起源於下列三個獨立的原因：(1) 標準制定組織的智慧產權書面政策清楚說明了該責任，(2) 智慧產權書面政策表述的模糊語意連同參與者的一般理解，或(3) 標準制定組織之上級組織的智慧產權政策。高通公司案《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第548卷第1012至1017頁)。須特別注意的是聯邦巡迴上訴法院同意地區法院的以下意見：即使視頻聯合工作組的智慧產權書面政策表述沒有清楚地設定披露義務，智慧產權的文字表述連同視頻聯合工作組參與者對政策的理解，亦可對所有參與者加諸披露責任。高通公司案(《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第548卷第1016頁)。視頻聯合工作組的智慧產權政策提到：任何參與者都必須披露與任何標準化建議“有關”的、或“影響使用”其工作成果的智慧產權。雖然該政策使用了“有關”、“ 影響使用”的詞語，但聯邦巡迴上訴法院決美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院: 高通公司敗訴─標準制定組織成員面臨新增法律???????? ??????????: ?????? -?????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???,???????? ????,??????? ???????????? ??,????????? ???(???????) ? (International Organization ???????????? ???????????? for Standardization)???? ?????:(1) ????? ?(implied waiver)??? ?????? (International ???????????? ???(equitable estoppel) Electrotechnical Commission) ??????,(2) ???? ,??????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???? (International ?????????,? (3) ???????????? Telecommunication Union ???????????? ???????????? Telecommunication ???????????? ????,??????? Standardization Sector) ??? («??????»???? ???????????? ????????,??? 548??1012?1017?)?? ???????,???? ???????????? ???????????? ???????;???? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????;?? ?? («??????»?? ?:?????????? ?,?????????? ??548??1013?)???? ???????????? ??????,????? ?????H.264??? ?????????,?? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?,?????????? ?,?????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? («? ??,????????? ?????»????548? ??????? (Qualcomm ??????,????? ?1016?)? Inc.) ??????? (Broadcom ??????????H.264 Corp.) ??? («????? ??????????? ??????????? ?»????548??1004 ?? ?????:????? ?) (????????2008 ???????????? ?),?????????? ??? Rambus Inv. ? Infineon ? “??”???“?? ???????????? Technologies AG ??(«?? ??”????????? ???,???????? ????»????318?? ??????????“? ?????????(Joint 1081?)(???????? ?”?“ ????”?? Video Team) ?????? 2003?) ????????? ?,?????????? ??????? — ?9? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 10 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter be necessary” applies a reasonable expect H.this standard not be Id. disclosure did not infringe by virtue 264 standard. Id. at 1018-case, in that can be used a the Federal Circuit waiver as standardsetting conducted analysis under the theory of That inconsistent with enforce as belief relinquished.” (citation omitted). clearly the scope under either implied remedy, the district including inpart, divisions, reissues, were Analogizing the present to unenforceability the Federal Circuit the scope SSO should be reflective of the at The Circuit held the patents standard. remedy on a defendant’s the standard-that in the standard was the Federal somewhat the scope remedy, to is severe. waiver rendered patents 264 standard. This is a the H.compression be Circuit’s in an SSO must be aware may have disclose IPR must observe a duty to patents relate a breach of a duty pivotal of the action. that the Circuit equitable estoppel, enforceability of the patents. Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer the “reasonably might be necessary” of Broadcom’s remedy would be the apply to any products that conform standard is “an objective standard, same under either implied waiver or to the H.264 standard. This is a which applies when a reasonable equitable estoppel. Id. at 1023-24. significant remedy, as the H.264 competitor would not expect to standard is becoming a universal As a remedy, the district court held practice the H.264 standard without a standard for video compression that the patents, including their license under the undisclosed claims.” continuations, continuations-in-technology that will be employed in Id. at 1018. Additionally, this standard most, if not all, of the products that part, divisions, reissues, and any does not require that a patent “must also practice the Qualcomm patents. other derivatives thereof, were ‘actually be necessary’ to practice completely unenforceable. Id. at As a result of the Federal Circuit’s the H.264 standard.” Id. In fact, 1024. Analogizing the present decision in Qualcomm, any the court held that Qualcomm had case to unenforceability due to participant in an SSO must be aware breached its duty of disclosure even patent misuse, the Federal Circuit that it may have a duty to disclose though the jury returned a verdict that reviewed and modified the scope its IPR even if the language of the the products at issue did not infringe of the unenforceability remedy. It SSO’s IPR policy is ambiguous. the patents by virtue of practicing the stated that “the remedy for waiver A participant must observe the H.264 standard. Id. at 1018-19. in the SSO context should not be actions and understanding of other In this case, in addition to the automatic, but should be fashioned participants and the IPR policies of theories of equitable estoppel and to give a fair, just, and equitable any parent organizations, which may common law fraud that can be used response reflective of the offending create a duty to disclose. Further, to challenge a patentee’s actions before conduct.” Id. at 1026. The any party in a patent infringement an SSO, the Federal Circuit validated Federal Circuit held the patents action involving patents that relate the use of implied waiver as a theory unenforceable against any products to a standardized technology should for challenging the enforceability of that practiced the H.264 standard. consider carefully pursuing and patents in the context of standard-Notably, the Federal Circuit’s remedy developing evidence regarding the setting organizations. Due to the is not contingent on a defendant’s understanding of the participants lower court’s decision, the Federal participation in the standard-setting and the patentee’s actions before the Circuit conducted its full analysis organization, either during the SSO, as a breach of a duty to disclose regarding the enforceability of the process that resulted in the standard patents under the theory of implied may play a pivotal role in deciding or after the standard was enacted. waiver. That is, Qualcomm’s the outcome of the action. During conduct was “so inconsistent with While the Federal Circuit somewhat this analysis, parties should keep an intent to enforce its rights as to limited the scope of the remedy, the in mind that the Federal Circuit induce a reasonable belief that such loss to Qualcomm is still severe. has affirmatively approved the right has been relinquished.” Id. Qualcomm’s implied waiver rendered theories of fraud, equitable estoppel, at 1020 (citation omitted). But the the two patents at issue, and their and implied waiver to attack the court clearly noted that the scope derivatives, unenforceable as they enforceability of the patents. morrison & foerster llp — page 10 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第11頁臺灣智慧產權通訊定，高通公司的披露責任僅限於在實施標準時，在合理狀況下有可能必須被用到的智慧產權。高通公司案《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第548卷第1017至18頁)。聯邦巡迴上訴法院解釋道，“合理狀況下可能必須”的標準是“一項客觀的標準，是指行業競爭對手在合理實施H.264 標準時，不會預料到該實施沒有獲得那些未披露的智慧產權之許可”。(同上第1018 頁)。此外，此標準沒有規定專利“必須是為實踐H.264標準所‘實際必須’的。”(同上)。事實上，法院認為，雖然陪審團決定被控產品沒有由於實踐H.264標準而侵犯高通公司專利權，但高通公司已經違反其披露責任。(同上第1018-19頁) 在本案中，除了衡平禁反言及普通法下的欺詐等理論可用於質疑專利權人與標準制定組織相關的行為外，聯邦巡迴上訴法院亦確認在涉及標準制定組識的情況下，默示棄權理論也可用於質疑專利的可執行性。由於下級法院做出的判決，聯邦巡迴上訴法院就根據默示棄權理論對專利進行了全面分析，認為高通公司的作為“與其強制執行其權利之意圖非常之不一致，以致於誘導他人合理地相信該權利已經被放棄。”(同上第1020頁(省略引證))。法院同時清楚地指明，博通公司的救濟範圍無論根據默示棄權或者衡平禁反言，都是一樣的。(同上第24頁)。作為救濟方法，地區法院認為，所有相關專利，包括其延續子專利、部分延續子專利、部分子專利、重審核頒佈之專利，以及任何其他衍生專利，都是完全不可強制執行的。(同上第1024頁)。聯邦巡迴上訴法院將本案模擬於不當使用專利導致的不可執行情況，審議並修改不可執行的救濟範圍，說道： “ 在涉及標準制定組織的情況下，棄權的救濟不是自動的，而必須參照相關違法行為，給予相對應的以及公平、正確和公正的救濟。” (同上第1026頁)。聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，專利對實施了264標準的任何產品均不可執行。特別值得一提的是， 聯邦巡迴上訴法院的救濟不以被告人正式加入標準制定組織為前提，不論是在標準制定的過程中還是在標準通過之後。雖然聯邦巡迴上訴法院在某程度上限制了救濟範圍，高通公司的損失仍然嚴重。高通公司的默示棄權使得其相關的兩項專利及其衍生專利均不可對任何符合H.264標準的產品強制執行。這是一項重大的救濟，原因是H.264標準將成為視訊壓縮技術之全球標準，大部分(甚至全部) 相關產品在實施標準時，亦將使用高通公司的專利。由於聯邦巡迴上訴法院對高通公司作出的決定，標準制定組織的所有參與者必須知道，就算標準制定組織的智慧產權書面政策表述可能含糊，他們依然可能有責任披露其智慧產權。有關參與者必須關注其他參與者的法律行為和他們對政策的理解， 以及任何上級組織的智慧產權政策。這些都可能產生參與者的披露責任。從另一角度，在涉及標準化技術的專利侵權訴訟中，違反披露責任可能對訴訟結果有十分重要的影響。因此，任何一方必須小心考慮並追蹤所有參與者對政策的理解以及專利權人在標準制定組織中的行為，並取得證據。在進行此分析時，各方應注意：聯邦巡迴上訴法院已經肯定表示欺詐、衡平禁反言、以及默示棄權的理論，都可以用於攻擊專利的可執行性。???????? ?,?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????,?? ??”(???1020? (?? ???????????? ???????????? ??))????????? ????????H.264?? ??????????? ?,?????????? ???????????? («??????»???? ???????????? ?????,???H.264? 548??1017?18?)???? ??,??????(??? ???????????? ????????,“?? 1023-24?)? ???,??? (????) ???????”???? ??????????,? “???????,??? ??????,????? ??????????? ??????????H.264 ?,?????? ,??? ???,???????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????,??? ?????”?(???1018 ????,??????? ???????????? ?)???,??????? ???,???????? ?,?????????? ??“??????H.264? ????(???1024?)? ???????????? ??‘????’??”(? ???????????? ?,?????????? ?)????,????,? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????,?????? ???????????? ????H.264?????? ????????,??: ???????????, ??????,????? “ ?????????? ???????????? ??????????(?? ???,???????? ???????????? ?1018-19?) ??,????????? ???????????? ??,????????? ?,?????????? ????,??????? ???????????” ??????,????? ???????????? (???1026?)?????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????,?????? ???????,???? ?????????,?? H.264?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????, ???????????? ??????????,? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?,?????????? ???????????? ?????,?????? ???,?????:?? ??????,????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ??????????,? ??????,????? ????????“??? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????,? ??? ,??????? ???????????? ??????? — ?11? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 12 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter time in an the Federal has addressed the applicability with to patent pools. Princo Corp. v. Int’ l No. (Princo), Circuit made it more difficult alleged to prove pooled patents impermissibly “a type of “tying” patents package. Justice Federal Guidelines Guidelines) tying” arrangement courts have of U.S. Philips Trade 1184 (Fed. Cir. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., 3d Whether a arrangement a patent pool tying whereas other tying are anticompetitive. Guidelines at 27. are the CD-and CDRW include patents and Sony. the investigation, Law Judge by patents for manufacturing compliant standards, because of S. v. Int’ l 1179, Cir. at 5-6. R and RW patent pools patents were to manufacturing RWs those finding patents were essential the Circuit finding the accused in nonessential and (2) their inclusion The case the Eye of the Beholder: The Essentiality and the Patent Misuse Defense Whether a tying arrangement such as a patent pool is permissible or impermissible depends on the exact nature of the tie: some tying arrangements are beneficial and pro-competitive, whereas other tying arrangements are anticompetitive. Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer In the Eye of the Beholder: The Essentiality Analysis and the Patent Misuse Defense For the second time in connection or impermissible depends on the by, inter alia, Philips and Sony. with an ongoing investigation exact nature of the tie: some tying During the ITC investigation, the before the U.S. International Trade arrangements are beneficial and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Commission (ITC), the Federal pro-competitive, whereas other tying found that Philips had committed Circuit has addressed the applicability arrangements are anticompetitive. patent misuse by including patents of the patent misuse defense with Antitrust Guidelines at 26-27. in the patent pool that were “not respect to patent pools. In its most essential for manufacturing compact recent decision, Princo Corp. v. Int’l Whether a tying discs compliant with the Orange Trade Comm’n, No. 2007-1386 (Fed. arrangement such Book standards, because there were Cir. 2009) (Princo), the Federal Circuit commercially viable alternative has made it more difficult for alleged as a patent pool methods of manufacturing CD-Rs infringers to prove that pooled patents is permissible or and CD-RWs that did not require the are impermissibly “tied” together. use of technology covered by those A patent pool is a type of “tying” impermissible patents.” U.S. Philips Corp. v. Int’l arrangement in which patents are depends on the Trade Comm’n, 424 F.3d. 1179, 1183 licensed together as a package. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2005); Princo at 5-6. In Dep’t of Justice & Federal Trade exact nature of other words, the ALJ found that the Comm’n, Antitrust Guidelines for the tie: some tying CD-R and CD-RW patent pools the Licensing of Intellectual Property impermissibly tied patents that were (1995) (Antitrust Guidelines) at arrangements essential to manufacturing CD-Rs 26-27. A “tying” arrangement is are beneficial and and CD-RWs to those that were not. one of the activities that courts have The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding found can “impermissibly broaden[] pro-competitive, that four patents were non-essential the scope of the patent grant leading whereas other tying and that their inclusion in the patent to the unenforceability of the tied patents under the doctrine of patent pools had an anticompetitive effect. arrangements are misuse.” U.S. Philips Corp. v. anticompetitive. On review, the Federal Circuit International Trade Comm’n, 424 reversed finding that the accused F.3d 1179, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2005) infringers had failed to prove that (1) (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., the four patents were in fact non-Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1372 (Fed. Cir. At issue are the CD-R and CD-essential and (2) their inclusion in the 1998). Whether a tying arrangement RW patent pools administered by pools had any anticompetitive effect. such as a patent pool is permissible Philips, which include patents owned Philips, 424 F.3d at 1198. The case morrison & foerster llp — page 12 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第13頁臺灣智慧產權通訊針對美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）進行的持續調查， 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院第二次詳細闡述了關於專利權濫用之抗辯是否適用於專利聯盟（patent pool）的問題。在其最近做出的判決中，Princo Corp.對國際貿易委員會案，案件號2007-1386（美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院2009年）(Princo)，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決使得涉嫌侵權人更難證明聯盟的專利是不允許被“捆綁”在一起的。專利聯盟是一種“搭售”協定，根據該協定，專利可作為一個整體一同進行專利許可交易。美國司法部和聯邦貿易委員會， 《與智慧產權許可有關的反托拉斯指南》（1995 年）（《反托拉斯指南》） 第26至27頁。“搭售”協議是一種由法院已經認定的，有可能“導致依照專利權濫用原則，使搭配在一起的專利不具執行性”的活動，因為該類活動“以法律不允許的方式擴大了專利授予範圍”。美國飛利浦公司對國際貿易委員會案， （《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第424卷第1179頁，1184頁）（美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院2005年） （引用C.R. Bard, Inc.對M3 Sys., Inc案，《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第157卷第1340頁，1372頁， 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院1998 年）。允許或不允許諸如專利聯盟這樣的搭售協議嚴格取決於搭配的性質：某些搭售協議是有益、並能促進競爭的，而有些則是反競爭的。《反托拉斯指南》第26至27頁。涉案問題是飛利浦公司管理的可錄式（CD-R）和可讀寫光碟（CD-RW）專利聯盟，該專利聯盟包括飛利浦和SONY 公司等擁有的專利。在美國國際貿易委員會調查中，行政法官（ALJ）判決飛利浦的行為構成專利權濫用，理由是其在專利聯盟中包括了“對生產符合橘皮書標準的壓縮碟片而言，系屬不必要的專利，因為在商業上存在可行的替代方法用於生產可錄式和可讀寫光碟，無需使用這些非必要專利中包含的技術。”美國飛利浦公司對國際貿易委員會案，（《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第424卷第1179頁，1183 頁）（美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院2005年）；Princo第5-6頁。換言之，行政法官判決：可錄式和可讀寫光碟專利聯盟不允許將生產可錄式和可讀寫光碟的必要專利和非必要專利進行搭配。隨後，美國國際貿易委員會維持了行政法官的判決： 認為有四項專利是非必要的， 而且認為專利聯盟中其包含的技術內容具有反競爭效果。但是，在復審中，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院駁回了判決，因為被控侵權人未能證明（1）四仁者見仁，智者見智：必要性分析以及專利權濫用之抗辯允許或不允許諸如專利聯盟這樣的搭售協議嚴格取決於搭配的性質： 某些搭售協議是有益、並能促進競爭的，而有些則是反競爭的。???????? ????,????:????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????”????? ????????????? (ITC)???????, ????????????, ?????????,?? ???????????? («??????»???? ??(ALJ)??????? ???????????? 424??1179?,1184?)(? ????????,???? ???????????? ?????????2005?) ?????????“??? ?(patent pool)????? (??C.R. Bard, Inc.? M3 Sys., ???????????? ?????????,Princo ?????????? ??,????????,? Corp.?????????,? ????????????? ?????????? ??2007-1386(?????? ????????????? ???? 2009?)(Princo),? ?????????: ?,?????????? ????????????? ?????????? ????????”??? ????????????? ???????,?? ???????????? ??????? “??”? ?,(«??????»? ???????? ???? ???424??1179?,1183 ?)(?????????? ???????“??”? Inc?,«??????»?? 2005?);Princo?5-6??? ?,?????,????? ??157??1340?,1372?, ??,??????:??? ????????????? ??????????1998 ????????????? ????????????? ?)??????????? ????????????? ??, «??????? ????????????? ????????????? ?????????»(1995 ??????:?????? ????,??????? ?)(«??????») ???????????,? ????????????: ?26?27??“??”??? ?????????«??? ????????????, ??????????,?? ???»?26?27?? ????????????? ?“?????????? ????????????? ????????????? ?,??????????? ???(CD-R)????? ?,????,?????? ???”???,????? ?(CD-RW)????,? ?????????,?? ?“??????????? ??????????SONY ?????????(1)? ??????? — ?13? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 14 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter remanded back to the ITC proceedings. considered infringers’ based on a fifth U.Pat. No. necessarily Rs RWs it covered both and infringers of the specification, was limited to digital CDRWs. Princo was Federal broadened definition Philips, the Federal had found that the patentsin-question were essential because record showed those Princo 1198). the Federal Circuit encompass might at 18-19. might to By broadening essentiality patents that not to Circuit has made difficult has order stand in the shoes and determine whether would that essential. from analysis Circuit remanded back to the ITC into Sony agreed license with from infringers’ such an patent misuse, Circuit the record was such an agreement. at 33-36. emphasized there is insufficient evidence patent to be used competing technologies, this theory. Id. at 36. By broadening of essentiality to encompass patents that are not in fact necessary to practice a standard, the Federal Circuit has not only made it correspondingly more difficult to prove the existence of nonessential patents in a patent pool, it has made the essentiality standard far more subjective. Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer was remanded back to the ITC for implementations, the Federal prove the existence of nonessential further proceedings. Circuit broadened the definition of patents in a patent pool, it has made On remand, the ITC considered essentiality. In Philips, the Federal the essentiality standard far more and rejected the accused infringers’ Circuit had found that the patents-subjective. In order to determine patent misuse defense based on a fifth in-question were essential because essentiality, courts cannot simply patent, Sony’s U.S. Pat. No. 4,942,565 “the record showed that those patents construe patents correctly, but must (Lagadec). Philips argued that claim 6 in fact had ‘no practical or realistic now first stand in the shoes of a of the Lagadec patent was necessarily alternative.’” Princo at 13 (quoting licensee and determine whether that infringed by CD-Rs and CD-RWs Philips, 424 F.3d at 1194, 1198). In licensee would believe that the patent because it covered both analog and Princo, however, the Federal Circuit “reasonably might be” essential. digital implementations, while the expanded essentiality to encompass Princo at 18-19. By broadening of essentiality to encompass Separate from the analysis above, the Federal Circuit remanded the patents that are not in fact necessary to practice case back to the ITC in order to make additional findings on whether a standard, the Federal Circuit has not only Philips and Sony had entered into made it correspondingly more difficult to prove an agreement in which Sony agreed not to license its patents for use with competing technologies. This theory the existence of nonessential patents in a patent pool, it has made the essentiality standard far is separate from and unrelated to the alleged infringers’ tying theory. more subjective. Although such an agreement would constitute patent misuse, Princo at 23, n. 11, the Federal Circuit found that the record was unclear as to a patent that “reasonably might be” whether Philips and Sony had in alleged infringers argued that, properly fact entered into such an agreement. essential. Princo at 18-19. In other interpreted in light of the specification, words it does not matter whether a Princo at 33-36. When remanding, claim 6’s scope was limited to digital patent is in fact essential, only that a the Federal Circuit emphasized implementations and therefore would licensee might reasonably believe it that if there is insufficient evidence not be infringed by CD-Rs and CDto be. By broadening of essentiality showing the agreement preventing RWs. Princo at 15-16. to encompass patents that are not in licensing individual patent to be used Instead of construing claim 6 fact necessary to practice a standard, with competing technologies, there to determine whether it was the Federal Circuit has not only made cannot be any patent misuse under limited to non-infringing digital it correspondingly more difficult to this theory. Id. at 36. morrison & foerster llp — page 14 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第15頁臺灣智慧產權通訊項專利實際上是不必要的以及（2）專利聯盟中包含的技術內容具有任何反競爭效果。飛利浦案，《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第424卷第1198頁。該案被發回美國國際貿易委員會進行進一步審理。案件被發回後，美國國際貿易委員會根據第5項專利（SONY 公司的美國專利號4,942,565 （Lagadec）），考慮並駁回了被控侵權人的專利權濫用抗辯。飛利浦辯稱可錄式和可讀寫光碟對Lagadec專利的權利要求6造成了必要的侵權， 因為其包括仿真和數字實施方法。而涉嫌侵權人辯解道，根據規範的適當解釋，權利要求6的範圍僅限於數字實施方法，因此可錄式和可讀寫光碟未對其侵權。Princo第15-16 頁。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院沒有通過分析權利請求6來決定其是否僅限於數字實施方法，而是放寬了對必要性的定義。在飛利浦案中，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決涉案專利是必要專利，因為“案件宗卷顯示這些專利實際上‘沒有可行的或實際的替代品’。” Princo案第13頁（引用飛利浦，《聯邦判例彙編》第三輯第424卷第1194 頁，1198頁）。但是在Princo 案中，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院將必要專利拓展為包括“ 合理並有可能是”必要的專利。Princo第18-19頁。換句話說，一項專利實際上是否必要無所謂，只要被許可人可能合理認為其必要就行。通過將必要專利拓展為包括對執行標準無需是實際必要的專利，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院不僅使得證明專利聯盟中存在非必要專利變得相對更加困難，還使得必要標準更加具有主觀性。為了確定必要性，現在法院不能只是簡單的正確解釋相關專利，還必須首先站在被許可人的立場，確定被許可人是否認為專利“合理並有可能是”必要的。Princo第18-19頁。獨立於上述分析，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院亦將案件發回美國國際貿易委員會，責令其判定飛利浦和SONY是否已經達成協議，若該專利已被包括在專利聯盟中，規定SONY不可向任何競爭技術發佈使用其專利的許可。該理論與涉嫌侵權人的搭售理論獨立，並毫無關係。儘管該等協議將構成專利權濫用，Princo第23頁注釋11， 但聯邦巡迴上訴法院判定此案宗卷關於飛利浦和SONY是否已實際簽署該等協定，記錄並不清楚。Princo第33-36頁。在發回案件時，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院強調，如果證據無法充分表明協議禁止向任何競爭技術發佈使用單個專利的許可， 則在本理論項下，無任何專利權濫用問題。同上第36頁。通過將必要專利拓展為包括對執行標準無需是實際必要的專利，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院不僅使得證明專利聯盟中存在非必要專利變得相對更加困難，還使得必要標準更加具有主觀性。???????? ????????????? ??????????? ???????????? (2)?????????? ?????????6?? ???,???????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???,«??????»? ?,?????????? ??,????????? ???424??1198???? ?????????,?? ??????????,? ????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????,??“? ?,?????????? ??????????? ??“???????”? ??????,?????? ?‘?????????? ???Princo?18-19?? ??????5???(SONY ??’?” Princo??13? ???????,????? ??????????????????? ????????????? ????????,??????????? ???????,???? ??????????????????? ?????SONY????? ???,????????? ??????,????????????? ?????,??SONY?? ?? ????????????? ????????????? (?????,«???? ????????,???? ????????4,942,565 ??»????424??1194 ????????????? (Lagadec)),????? ?,1198?)????Princo ???,Princo?23???11, ????????????? ??,????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????????“ ????????SONY?? ?????Lagadec???? ???????”???? ?????????,??? ???6????????, ??Princo?18-19????? ????Princo?33-36??? ????????????? ?,?????????? ?????,??????? ???????????,? ????,??????? ?????,??????? ????????,??? ???????????? ????????????? ?6??????????? ???????????? ????????????, ?,?????????? ???????????? ???????,????? ???????Princo?15-16 ??,????????? ?????????36?? ?? ???????????? ??????? — ?15? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 16 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter three separate a issued new applications, for In Tafas within the scope The invalid with the district the for further Judge found all it remains to be seen left with be decided it will any implementation create Background on applications, The goal of these was reduce while maintaining the of issued receiving opposed rules, the final These as Rules”) were at in litigation. known entitled inpart a matter of right. continuation applications filed petition or evidence have submitted Rule 114 is one RCE as an application similar filed to file any additional in a set 5 independent and 25 total (the “5/25 Rule”). before these are 5/not count withdrawn count claims present indistinct Up to 15 independent via an initial Looms Large in Federal Circuit Decision: and Patent Applicants Still Locked in Following Tafas v. Doll Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer Impact Looms Large in Federal Circuit Decision: USPTO and Patent Applicants Still Locked in Showdown Following Tafas v. Doll On March 20, 2009, in a split BACKGROUND part applications as a matter of right. decision including three separate In January of 2006, the USPTO Additional continuation applications opinions, a panel of the Federal published two notices proposing may be filed only if the applicant Circuit issued its long-awaited limits on continuation applications, files a petition “showing that the decision on the USPTO’s attempted RCE practice, applications containing amendment, argument, or evidence implementation of four new rules on sought to be entered could not have patentably indistinct claims, and continuation applications, number been submitted during the prosecution examination of claims in patent of claims, and requests for continued of the prior-filed application.” applications. The goal of these Similarly, Final Rule 114 provides that examination (“RCE”). In Tafas v. proposed rules, according to the an applicant is allowed one RCE as a Doll, the majority found that the four USPTO, was to “reduce the large matter of right within an application new rules are within the scope of the and growing backlog of unexamined family. A petition similar to Final Rule USPTO’s rulemaking authority. The applications while maintaining or 78 must also be filed if an applicant majority also affirmed the district improving the quality of issued seeks to file any additional RCEs. court’s decision that the rule on patents.” After receiving and analyzing continuation applications (Final Rule more than 500 comments, many of Final Rules 75 and 265 impose obligations on applicants when 78) was invalid on the ground that which opposed these proposed rules, the number of claims filed in a set it was inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. § the USPTO made minor modifications and issued the final rules on August of related copending applications 120, but vacated the district court’s 21, 2007. These new rules (collectively exceeds 5 independent and 25 total invalidation of the remaining rules, known as the “Final Rules”) were claims (the “5/25 Rule”). Final and remanded the case for further to become effective on November 1, Rule 75 requires a submission of an proceedings. Judge Rader, in his Examination Support Document dissent, found all four rules invalid. 2007, and four of the main rules (Final (“ESD”) before the first Office action Rules 75, 78, 114, and 265) were at Although it remains to be seen how on the merits, if these limits are the issues left open with respect to issue in litigation. exceeded. The 5/25 claim threshold rules that were upheld will be decided Final Rules 78 and 114, also known does not count withdrawn claims, but on remand, and it is not known collectively as the “2 + 1 Rule,” are does count all of the claims present whether rehearing en banc will be directed to continuation applications in other co-pending applications requested, any implementation of the and RCEs, respectively. Under Final having a patentably indistinct new rules will create challenges for Rule 78, an applicant is entitled to file claim. Up to 15 independent claims patent applicants. two continuation or continuation-in-and 75 total claims via an initial morrison & foerster llp — page 16 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第17頁臺灣智慧產權通訊2009年3月20日，在包括三種單獨意見的非一致決定中，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的合議庭發佈了令人期待已久的，有關美國專利商標局嘗試執行的四項新規則的決定。這四項新規則是關於繼續申請類專利（continuation application） 、權利請求項數和請求繼續審查(“RCE”)。在Tafas 對Doll案中，多數法官裁決四項新規則未逾越美國專利商標局的規則制定權力範圍。多數法官也以抵觸《美國法典》第35篇第120 條的理由維持地區法院做出的“繼續申請規則（最終規則第78條）無效”的判決，但是推翻了地區法院認定其餘規則也無效的判決，並將案件發回做進一步審理。Rader法官在其異議書中裁決4項規則全部無效。儘管還需等待在發回重審中初審法官是如何裁定有爭議規則，而且也不知道聯邦巡迴上訴法院是否需要全體法官出庭重審，但任何新規則的實施都將給專利申請人帶來挑戰。背景2006年1月，美國專利商標局發佈兩個通知，提議限制專利申請中的繼續申請、請求繼續審查、含有可專利性無法區分的權利請求的申請、以及權利請求審查。美國專利商標局稱，提議這些規則的目的是“減少大量的並且不斷增多的未審查申請遺案，同時維持並提高已公佈專利的品質。”在接受並分析了500多份意見後（其中多數意見反對這些提議規則），美國專利商標局進行較小修改後於2007年8月21日公佈了最終規則。這些新規則（統稱“最終規則”）於2007年11月1日生效，但主要規則中有4條（第75條、78條、114條和265條）仍是訴訟爭議項。被統稱為“2 + 1規則”的是最終規則第78條和114 條。它們是分別針對繼續申請和請求繼續審查的。根據最終規則第78條，申請人有權提交兩件繼續申請或部分繼續申請，作為一項權利。僅當申請人提交請求“表明尋求執行的修改、答辯或證據無法或本不應該在之前提交的申請的審查過程中予以提交” 時，方可提交更多的繼續申請。與之類似，最終規則第114條規定，申請人允許在一個申請族（patent family）中提交一次請求繼續審查，作為一項權利。如果申請人尋求提交更多次的請求繼續審查，也必須提交與最終規則第78條類似的請求。當一系列相關的未結申請，總共擁有獨立權利請求項項數超過5項或者總項數超過25項（“5/25”規則）時，最終規則第75條和265條要求申請人承擔相關義務。最終規則第75條要求，如果超出上述限制， 則需在第一次實質性審查意見通知做出之前提交審查支持檔（ESD）。5/25權利請求項限制不包括撤回的權利請求，但是包括所有相關未結申請中，具有可專利性無法區分的權利請求，無論它們是否處在不同相關未結申請中。申美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決影響巨大： Tafas對Doll案後，美國專利商標局和專利申請人仍處於一決雌雄的僵局狀態???????? ?????????????????: Tafas?Doll??,???????????? ????????????? 2009?3?20?,???? ?? ??“???????? ??????????? ??????????? ?,????????? 2006?1?,?????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????,???? ??????????” ????,?????? ???????????? ?,????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????,??? ??????????? ??????????? ??114???,???? ??????????? ???????????? ???????(patent (continuation application) ???????,??? family)???????? ??????????? ???????“???? ???,??????? ???(“RCE”)??Tafas ???????????? ??????????? ?Doll??,?????? ???,???????? ????????,?? ??????????? ????????”?? ?????????78?? ??????????? ?????500????? ????? ??????????? (??????????? «????»?35??120 ???),?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????2007? ?,????????? ??“??????(? 8?21????????? ??????5????? ????78?)??”? ?????(??“?? ???25?(“5/25”? ??,???????? ??”)?2007?11?1? ?)?,?????75? ??????????? ??,???????4? ?265????????? ??,???????? (?75??78??114?? ?????????75?? ?????Rader???? 265?)???????? ?,????????, ??????4????? ??????????? ??????????? ????“2 + 1??”? ??????????? ??????????? ??????78??114 ????(ESD)?5/25? ???????,??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????,????? ??????????? ???????78?,?? ????????,?? ?,????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????,??? ??,???????? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ??????? — ?17? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 18 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter presented Final Rule 265 sets search relevant references, of each claim, identification the Federal first Tafas, Beecham Tafas”) the Patent Procedure Flexibility In Tafas v. Dudas, 511 F. (“Tafas I”), enjoined Tafas moved for injunction. In Tafas 2d 805 (II”), the district motion inconsistent with the precedents Circuit; lacked rulemaking Rules the USPTO’s statutory invalid. appealed Among the issues before Circuit were has rulemaking whether Final Rules are four The Federal Circuit ’s Decision Rulemaking Authority Prost, writing agreed with is vested substantive rulemaking only with of proceedings.” See C. (“establish in and expedite processing can be stored, processed, and retrieved electronically may representing applicants or the Office specifically, Judge Prost’s rejected Congress has not vested any general rulemaking in the Office” Congress substantive the USPTO’s “Chevron extended to the of provides authority,” because that were given Chevron as relied on by the USPTO, were within of the USPTO’s rulemaking Chevron S.Resources Defense Council, Inc., (“construction agency’s whether it is a reasonable a gap left open by Congress, must fail.”). However, Circuit with that Chevron deference Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer application and 2 continuation the Patent Act and the precedents persons representing applicants or applications, but only when from the Federal Circuit; that the other parties before the Office . . .”) prosecuted serially, can be presented USPTO lacked substantive rulemaking More specifically, Judge by an applicant. Final Rule 265 sets authority; and that the Final Rules Prost’s opinion rejected the USPTO’s out the requirements for ESDs, which exceeded the USPTO’s statutory argument that the substantive or include a preexamination search authority and were invalid. The procedural distinction is immaterial, statement, a list of relevant references, USPTO appealed to the Federal because Congress has not identification of claim limitations Circuit. Among the issues before vested the USPTO with any general disclosed by each reference, detailed the Federal Circuit were whether the substantive rulemaking power and explanation of patentability of each USPTO has substantive rulemaking that the language of “the conduct of independent claim, and identification authority, whether the Final Rules are proceedings in the Office” in § 2(b) of support in the specification under substantive or procedural, and whether (2) is “indicative that Congress did not 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. these four new rules are valid. intend to give the USPTO substantive Shortly after the publication date THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S rulemaking authority.” This opinion of the new final rules in the Federal DECISION also rejected the USPTO’s argument Register, first Triantafyllos Tafas, rulemaking authority that “Chevron deference should and then SmithKline Beecham In setting out the analytical have been extended to the issue of Corporation, and Glaxo Group framework, Judge Prost, writing for the whether § 2(b)(2) provides substantive (“Tafas”) filed suit against the USPTO majority, agreed with the district court rulemaking authority,” because on the grounds that the Final Rules that the USPTO is not vested with any the cases that were given Chevron violate the Constitution, the Patent general substantive rulemaking power deference, as relied on by the USPTO, Act, the Administrative Procedure under § 2(b)(2) of the Patent Act, involved judicial review of procedural Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility but is vested only with the authority rules and therefore were within the Act. In Tafas v. Dudas, 511 F. Supp. to establish regulations that govern scope of the USPTO’s rulemaking 2d 652 (E.D. Va. 2007) (“Tafas I ”), the “the conduct of proceedings.” See authority. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. district court preliminarily enjoined 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) (giving USPTO Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., enforcement of the Final Rules. Tafas authority to “establish regulation, 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984) (“When a subsequently moved for summary not inconsistent with law, which . challenge to an agency construction judgment on the ground that the . . (A) shall govern the conduct of of a statutory provision, fairly Final Rules were invalid and sought proceedings in the office; . . . (C) shall conceptualized, really centers on the a permanent injunction. In Tafas v. facilitate and expedite the processing of wisdom of the agency’s policy, rather Dudas, 541 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Va. patent applications, particularly those than whether it is a reasonable choice 2007) (“Tafas II ”), the district court which can be filed, stored, processed, within a gap left open by Congress, granted Tafas’ motion for summary searched, and retrieved electronically . the challenge must fail.”). However, judgment, on the grounds that the . . (D) may govern the recognition and the Federal Circuit agreed with the Final Rules were inconsistent with conduct of agents, attorneys, or other USPTO that Chevron deference morrison & foerster llp — page 18 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第19頁臺灣智慧產權通訊請人可通過最初申請和兩件繼續申請（但僅限於在相繼審查時）提出最多15 項獨立權利請求和總計75項權利請求。最終規則第265 條對審查支持檔做出了要求，包括《美國法典》第35 篇第112條1款項下的審查前檢索聲明、相關參考檔列表、確認各參考檔披露的權利請求限制、各獨立權利請求項可專利性的詳細解釋、以及專利說明中對權利請求的支持（指第35篇第112條1款項下的支援）。新最終規則在《聯邦紀事》上公佈後不久，Triantafyllos Tafas、SmithKline Beecham Corporation和Glaxo Group Tafas”) 以最終規則違反了憲法、專利法、行政程式法和美國管制靈活性法為由先後起訴美國專利商標局。在Tafas對Dudas案中， （《聯邦補充判例彙編》第二輯第511卷第652頁） （弗吉尼亞州東區法院，2007年）（“Tafas I”）， 地區法院初步命令執行最終規則。隨後Tafas以最終規則無效為由尋求簡易判決並尋求永久禁止令。在Tafas 對Dudas案中，（《聯邦補充判例彙編》第二輯第541 卷第805頁）（弗吉尼亞州東區法院，2007年）（“Tafas II”），地區法院基於下述理由同意Tafas的簡易判決申請，即通過簡易判決程式， 判決最終規則與專利法和美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決先例相抵觸；美國專利商標局缺少實質性法規制定權； 最終規則超出了美國專利商標局的法規制定權力範圍， 從而無效。美國專利商標局向美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院提起上訴。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院面臨的問題是：美國專利商標局是否有實質性的法規制定權、最終規則是實質性的還是程式性的以及這四項新規則是否有效。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決法規制定權在制定分析框架時，Prost 法官代表多數法官，在法庭意見書中同意地區法院的裁決：美國專利商標局未被授予專利法第2(b)(2)條項下任何通常的實質性的法規制定權，而僅被授予制定管理“程式列為”之法規的權力。參見《美國法典》第35 篇第2(b)(2)條（賦予美國專利商標局制定不與法律相抵觸之法規的權力…（A） 應當管理當職者的程式列為；…（C）應當方便並加速處理專利申請，尤其是那些可以通過電子方式提交、儲存、處理、檢索及恢復的專利申請…（D）可以管理代理、律師、或其他在專利局代表申請人、或其他當事人的身份和行為…”） 更具體而言，Prost法官的意見否定了美國專利商標局所謂的實質性與程式性之區分是無關緊要的辯論，因為美國國會未授予美國專利商標局任何通常的實質性的法規制定權，第2(b)(2) 條中的語言表述“在專利局中，程式列為”表示出“美國國會無意向美國專利商標局授予實質性的法規制定權。”該意見還駁回了美國專利商標局的辯論“法庭尊重政府行政機構（Chevron deference） 應對2(b)(2) 條是否規定了實質性的法規制定權適用，” 駁回的原因是美國專利商標局所依賴的應用Chevron deference原則之案例，都只涉及程式規則的司法審查， 因此那些案例中法規制定都在美國專利商標局的法規制定權範圍內。Chevron U.S.A., Inc.對美國自然資源保護委員會, 467 U.S. 837, 866（1984） （“當對某行政機構對有關法律條款解釋質疑時，如果公正地看，只是關注該機構政策是否明智，而不是其是否在填補立法空白，這樣質疑是站不住腳的”）。但是， 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在以???????? ??????????? ???Tafas?????? ???????????? ?????(????? ?,?????????, ????…(D)???? ?????)????15 ???????????? ???????????? ??????????75? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????265 ?????;?????? ???????…”) ??????????? ???????????; ?,??«????»?35 ???????????? ?????,Prost??? ??112?1??????? ???????????, ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????,?? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????:??? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ????,?2(b)(2) ??? ???????(??35? ???????????? ????“?????,? ?112?1??????)? ???????????? ???”???“???? ????????? ???????????? ??????«????» ??????????”? ??????,Triantafyllos ??????????? ???????????? Tafas?SmithKline Beecham ?? ????“??????? Corporation?Glaxo Group ???(Chevron deference) (“Tafas”) ??????? ????? ??2(b)(2) ??????? ??????????? ??????????,” ???????????? ????????,Prost ??????????? ??????????? ????????,??? ????????Chevron ???Tafas?Dudas??, ???????????? deference?????,?? («????????»? ?:?????????? ???????????, ???511??652?) ?????2(b)(2)???? ???????????? (???????? ???????????? ???????????? ?,2007?)(“Tafas I”), ?,????????? ??????Chevron U.S.A., ???????????? “????”????? Inc.?????????? ?????Tafas???? ????«????»?35 ??, 467 U.S. 837, 866(1984) ??????????? ??2(b)(2)?(????? (“?????????? ??????????Tafas ??????????? ?????????,?? ? Dudas??,(«??? ????????…(A) ????,??????? ?????»????541 ??????????? ??????,????? ??805?)(????? ?;…(C)?????? ????????,??? ????,2007?)(“Tafas ???????,???? ???????”)???, II”),????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????? — ?19? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 20 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter provisions authority. Rules Are Procedural Rules they “govern the timing patent he the parties present face, effective opportunity’ The requirement all then available by continuation Rules 78 and 114 was not significant “foreclose from an applicant, was that be free to entertain challenges have respect Rules burden of production on the has in on its face, does wide search without regard to scope, these of limiting of can Rule 78 Circuit Circuit, invalidity on the conclusion that with Because states if of the priority, not have is statute. Rule 114 the district inconsistent with (including and that to unlimited discretion. deferred interpretation prescribe request some Rule 114 and that RCEs. Rules 75 and 265 the majority reversed 112, and 131. While made limit invalid, by which Concerns to were Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer can be given to the USPTO’s persuasion in denying patentability. arguments that § 132 should be interpretation of statutory provisions Further, the majority held that the interpreted on “per application” in relation to its rulemaking within its ESD requirement, on its face, does basis and that Congress intended delegated authority. not require a “world-wide search of RCEs to be unlimited in number prior art without regard to scope, at applicant’s discretion. The Final rules are Procedural time, or cost”; that the concern for opinion deferred to the USPTO’s According to the majority opinion, inequitable conduct allegations is reasonable interpretation of the the Final Rules are procedural too speculative to void these rules; statute, which allows the USPTO because they “govern the timing of and that the practice of limiting to “‘prescribe regulations’ to govern and materials that must be submitted the length of prosecution history to the applicant’s ability to request with patent applications . . . [t]he broaden the scope of the claims is continued examination, which must, Final Rules may ‘alter the manner not a right that can be invoked to in some circumstances, be granted.” in which the parties present . . . void the Final Rules. Accordingly, the majority held that their viewpoints’ to the USPTO, Final Rule 114 can be applied on a but they do not, on their face, Final rule 78 per-family basis and that it is not ‘foreclose effective opportunity’ The Federal Circuit affirmed the required by the statute to grant to present patent applications for district court’s holding that Final Rule unlimited RCEs. examination.” The requirement 78 is invalid, but on different grounds. of providing all then available Final rules 75 and 265 At the Federal Circuit, invalidity amendments, arguments, and was based on the conclusion that the Similarly, the majority reversed the evidence by the second continuation rule is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. § district court’s holding that Final application or the first RCE 120. Because § 120 unambiguously Rules 75 and 265 violated 35 U.S.C. under Final Rules 78 and 114 was and plainly states that an application §§ 102, 103, 112, and 131. While considered not a significant burden meeting the requirements of the the opinion made clear that any that would “foreclose effective statute shall have the “same effect” rule setting an absolute limit on the opportunity” from an applicant, as if filed on the date of the priority, number of claims perused would and it was asserted that the courts be invalid, it did not find Final adding an additional requirement (i.e., “will be free to entertain challenges Rules 75 and 265 to do so. The amendments, arguments, or evidence to the USPTO’s application of the additional burden of providing an that could not have been submitted Final Rules, including its view of ESD can be met by applicants, and earlier) to these requirements when amendments, arguments, is such submission does not change the foreclosed by the and evidence could not have been statute. standards by which the application submitted earlier.” With respect Final rule 114 is examined. Concerns regarding to Final Rules 75 and 265, while The majority reversed the district exposure to inequitable conduct an increased burden of production court’s holding that Final Rule allegations based on any inadequacy may be placed on the applicant, the 114 was inconsistent with 35 in an ESD were considered not to examiner still has the burden of U.S.C. § 132(a) and (b), including be germane. morrison & foerster llp — page 20 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第21頁臺灣智慧產權通訊下這點上同意美國專利商標局的說法，即針對其法規制定權相關法條司法解釋而言，美國專利商標局在其被授權範圍內將享有Chevron deference。最終規則是程式性的根據多數法官的意見，最終規則是屬於程式性的，因為其“管理著必須與專利申請一同提交的資料以及提交時間…最終規則可能會‘改變當事人向美國專利商標局提出……其觀點的方式’，但是並不直接了當‘妨礙當事人提出專利審查申請之有效機會’”。正式規則第78條和第114條規定，在第二件繼續申請之前，或首次請求繼續申請之前，當事人必須提交所有屆時可用的修改、答辯以及證據。法院認為這一要求並不對申請人獲得“有效機會”造成巨大負擔，而且法院亦宣稱“當事人盡可以在法院對美國專利商標局最終具體規則的應用提出質疑，包括對何為無法在先前的申請中提交修改、答辯以及證據，專利商標局所採納的觀點。”就最終規則第75條和第265條而言， 雖然給申請人造成需要提供更多資料的負擔，審查人員在拒絕可專利性時，依然面臨說服負擔（burden of persuasion）。此外，多數法官認為：ESD要求並沒有直接強求“不考慮範圍、時間或費用進行世界範圍內檢索”；這些法規將製造申請人不公平行為的觀點太過於臆測，從而無法使這些法規無效；以及限制審查時間的長度以拓展權利請求範圍的做法，也不是一項可以用來使最終法規無效的權利。最終規則第78條美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院維持了地區法院做出的最終規則第78條無效的判決，但是是基於不同的理由。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決的無效是以該規則與《美國法典》第35篇第120條相抵觸這一結論為基礎的。因為第120條明確且簡明的表述稱，符合法規要求的申請應具有與在優先權日提交之申請有“同等的效力”，法規禁止對這些要求添加附加要求（例如：無法在早些時候提交相關修改、答辯或證據的要求）。最終規則第114條多數法官推翻了地區法院做出的最終規則第114條與《美國法典》第35篇第132 （a）和（b）條相抵觸的判決，地區法院的那些判決包括需以“每個申請”為基礎來解釋第132條，以及美國國會打算不加限制地讓申請人自行決定請求繼續審查的次數。法庭意見書尊重美國專利商標局對法令的合理解釋，該法令允許美國專利商標局“‘制定法規’從而管理申請人請求繼續審查的能力，只要在某些情況下，專利商標局必須同意所提出的繼續審查請求”。相應的， 多數法官裁決最終規則第114條可以按申請族予以適用，法令無需授予無限次數的繼續審查請求。最終規則第75條和第265條如此，多數法官也推翻了地區法院做出的最終規則第75 條和第265條違反了《美國法典》第35篇第102條、103 條、112條和131條的判決。意見明確表示對權利請求項數設定絕對限制的任何規則均將無效，但其未發現第75條和第265條存在上述情況。申請人可以滿足提供ESD的額外負擔，而且進行該等提交並未改變審查申請的標準。針對以ESD中存在任何不足，從而會導致不公平行為的主張，法庭認為其無足輕重。???????? ???????????? persuasion)???,?? ???“????”??? ????,??????? ????:ESD????? ????132?,???? ??????????? ????“??????? ???????????? ?,????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????Chevron ?”;????????? ???????????? deference? ???????????? ???????????? ??,????????? ?,?????????? ????????? ??;????????? ??“‘????’??? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????,?? ??,????????? ?,????????,? ?????????,?? ??????????? ???????????? ?“?????????? ??????”????, ???????????? ?????78? ??????????? ?…???????‘?? 114?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?,?????????? ?……??????’,? ???????????? ???????? ???????‘???? ?78??????,??? ???????????? ???????????? ?????75???265? ??’”??????78? ???????????? ??114???,???? ?????«????»? ??,????????? ??????,????? 35??120??????? ???????????75 ??????,???? ?????????120? ???265????«?? ??????????? ?????????,?? ??»?35??102??103 ???????????? ???????????? ??112??131????? ???????????? ??????????“? ???????????? ?“????”????? ????”,?????? ???????????? ?,???????“?? ?????????(? ????,?????? ???????????? ?:?????????? 75???265?????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ????,??????? ?)? ESD?????,???? ???????????? ???????????? ??????,????? ?????114? ???????ESD??? ???????”???? ????,??????? ??75???265???, ??????????? ??????,????? ???????????? ????????114?? ????? ???????,??? «????»?35??132 ?????????,? (a)?(b)?????? ???????(burden of ?,?????????? ??????? — ?21? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 22 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter Property Practice News Recent Awards & Accolades & Foerster’s from Chambers & In awarding the firm bestowed Global IP Life Sciences, and One client was “firm exceeds our every expectation – it is absolutely of the best firms out was a for Japan the new Asia survey. for IP International ITC 337, and honored respectively. From the Docket East Texas Awards Pioneer $& Foerster secured Corporation a suit against Samsung of Texas infringed the patents $59.3 million Filed the of infringed plasma a announcing Pioneer decision recognition intellectual the field of plasma The team was Harold (San office), Karen Andrew (San Francisco). Evapco Wins Complete Summary a victory district and dismissed Corp. v. Evapco, follows the issuance Markman fall arguments Systems 2005, of trade secrets law torts. that infringed claiming for Evapco has prevailed Clearwater’s MoFo team was Hadjis, associates Vlissides, Yan and technology advisor Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer Intellectual Property Practice News RECENT AWARDS & Pioneer Corporation in a patent court judge granted summary ACCOLADES infringement suit against Samsung judgment of non-infringement and Morrison & Foerster’s IP practice Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliates. invalidity,and dismissed all patent continued to garner recognition in After an eight-day trial, and only infringement claims stemming from the first quarter of 2009, capturing four hours of deliberation, a jury two patentsmade by Clearwater in major honors from Chambers & in the Eastern District of Texas Clearwater Systems Corp. v. Partners, Asia Pacific Legal 500, and decided three Samsung entities had Evapco, Inc. The ruling in the District Court Managing IP. In awarding the firm’s willfully infringed the patents in of Connecticut follows the issuance IP practice with more top rankings suit and awarded $59.3 million in of a favorable Markman order for than any other firm in the world, compensatory damages to Pioneer. Evapco and hearings last fall at Chambers Global bestowed upon The two parties settled soon after the which arguments were heard on the our IP practice Band One rankings for verdict. Filed in the fall of 2006, the summary judgment motions. Global IP, Global IP Life Sciences, and suit asserted that plasma televisions USA IP. One client was quoted by Clearwater Systems and Evapco are manufactured by Samsung infringed Chambers Global as saying: “this firm both manufacturers of non-chemical two plasma display technology patents constantly exceeds our every expectation water treatment devices. Clearwater held by Pioneer. -it is absolutely one of the best firms out first filed suit in 2005, alleging there.” The firm was further honored In a press release announcing the theft of trade secrets and other with a Band One ranking for Japan outcome of the trial, Pioneer stated: business law torts. Clearwater also IP in the new Chambers Asia survey. “This significant decision in favor alleged that Evapco infringed two The Asia Pacific Legal 500 ranked us of Pioneer represents recognition of Clearwater patents, one claiming Band One in Japan for IP International the strength of Pioneer’s intellectual a device for non-chemical water Firms and Joint Ventures. Our Patent property rights in the field of plasma treatment and the other claiming Prosecution, ITC Section 337, and displays.” The winning team was a method for non-chemical water Trademark practices were also honored led by Harold McElhinny (San treatment. Evapco has prevailed on in Managing IP, earning Tier 2, Tier 3, Francisco office), Karen Hagberg and Tier 4 rankings, respectively. all of Clearwater’s claims. (New York office), and Andrew FROM THE DOCKET Monach (San Francisco). The winning MoFo team was led by partner Alexander Hadjis, associates east Texas Jury awards Pioneer $60 evapco wins complete summary Million Judgment Defense Matt Vlissides, Yan Wang, and Morrison & Foerster secured a In a defense victory for Evapco, Paul Kletzly, and technology advisor major victory in October 2008 for Inc., on January 8 a district Vivian Lei. morrison & foerster llp — page 22 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a美富律師事務所— 第23頁臺灣智慧產權通訊最近所獲獎勵和榮譽美富智慧產權業務在2009年第一季度不斷榮獲嘉獎，取得了《錢伯斯&合夥人》、《亞太法律500強》以及《管理智慧產權》授予的主要榮譽。與世界上任何其他律所相比，《錢伯斯環球指南》向本所智慧產權業務授予了更多的頂級排名，《錢伯斯環球指南》將本所智慧產權業務列為全球智慧產權、全球智慧產權生命科學和美國智慧產權領域的1級律所。《錢伯斯環球指南》引用一位元客戶的話說“美富不斷超越我們的預期，的確是最傑出的律所之一。”在最新進行的錢伯斯亞洲調查中，本所憑藉日本智慧產權業務又一次被授予1級榮譽。《亞太法律500強》將本所譽為日本地區智慧產權國際公司和合資公司業務領域的1級律所。《管理智慧產權》還將本所的專利審查、美國國際貿易委員會第337條、以及商標業務分別排為2級、3級和4級。案件德州東區法院陪審團裁決先鋒公司獲得6000萬美元賠償在向三星電子及其關聯公司提起的專利侵權訴訟中，美富律師事務所在2008年10月為先鋒公司贏得了巨大勝利。經過8天的審判，以及僅僅4個小時的商議，德克薩斯州東區法院的陪審團判決3 家三星實體曾故意侵犯訴訟專利，並裁決向先鋒公司支付5930萬美元作為損失賠償金。在裁決後雙方很快達成了和解。該訴訟是在2006年秋季提起的，訴訟指控三星公司生產的等離子電視侵犯了先鋒公司持有的兩項等離子顯示器技術專利。在宣佈審判結果的一篇新聞稿中，先鋒公司表示：“本次有利於先鋒公司的重大判決認可了先鋒公司在等離子顯示器領域擁有的智慧產權實力。”美富取得案件勝利的團隊由Harold McElhinny（舊金山市辦事處）、Karen Hagberg （紐約辦事處）和Andrew Monach（舊金山辦事處）領導。Evapco在簡易判決中全面辨訴成功美富為Evapco, Inc贏得辯護勝利。1月8日，在Clearwater Corp對Evapco, Inc案中， 地區法院法官授予Evapo未侵權和無效簡易判決，並駁回Clearwater基於兩項專利提出的所有專利侵權權利主張。康涅狄格州地區法院做出的這項有利於Evapo的裁決， 是在宣佈有利於Evapco的Markman令，以及去年秋季舉行的聽證（在此次聽證上審理了有關簡易判決申請的爭議）後而決定的。Systems 和均是非化學水處理設備的生產商。Clearwater首先在2005年提起了訴訟，其主張包括盜取商業秘密和其他商業法侵權。Clearwater還主張Evapco侵犯了Clearwater的智慧產權業務新聞???????? ???????? ????????? ?? ?)?Karen Hagberg (?????)? andrew ?????????2009? ???????????? Monach(??????)? ??????????,? ?????6000????? ?? ??«???&???»? «????500?»?? ???????????? Evapco????????? «??????»???? ??????????,? ??? ???????????? ???????2008?10? ????,«?????? ??????????? ???Evapco, Inc???? ?»?????????? ????8????,??? ???1?8?,?Clearwater ?????????,«? ?4??????,???? Systems Corp? Evapco, Inc??, ??????»????? ???????????3 ????????Evapo?? ??????????? ???????????? ????????,??? ???????????? ??,????????? Clearwater???????? ??????????1?? ?5930????????? ???????????? ??«???????»? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????“?? ?????????2006? ?????Evapo???, ?????????,?? ?????,?????? ???????Evapco? ??????????”? ???????????? Markman?,??????? ???????????? ???????????? ????(??????? ?,?????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????1???? ?)?????? «????500?»???? ???????????? ???????????? ??,??????:“? Clearwater Systems ?Evapco ???????????1? ??????????? ??????????? ???«??????»? ??????????? ????Clearwater??? ???????????? ??????????? 2005??????,??? ???????337???? ??????”???? ???????????? ????????2??3? ????????Harold ?????Clearwater?? ?4?? Mcelhinny(?????? ?Evapco???Clearwater? ??????? — ?23? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a& foerster llp — page 24 Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter addresses recent intellectual property Because of its generality, the information be specific legal advice based situations. If you wish to change an address, or comment email Michael Zwerin at mzwerin@mofo.com in Palo Alto, David mofo.in & Foerster LLP. All Rights Reserved. Achieves ITC Win Infringement Suit 10, issued and remedy that the respondents s television or sale for Japan-U.S.-based Inc., comes including Proview, and The Investigation before began November of Tariff Foerster winning led by partner Karl Kramer, assistance from partners Harold Hector Gallegos, Louise Stoupe, Moto Araki, and Press. 兩項專利，其中一個是針對非化學水處理設備提起的侵權主張，另外一個是針對非化學水處理方法提出的。針對Clearwater 的所有侵權主張，Evapco均取得了勝利。美富取得案件勝利的團隊由合夥人Alexander Hadjis （韓明山）、律師Matt Vlissides, Yan Wang（王焱）、Paul Kletzly和技術顧問Vivian Lei （雷以書）領導。美富在國際貿易委員會為船井公司贏得專利侵權訴訟4月10日，美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）宣佈正式判決和救濟令，判決被告侵犯了船井電機株式會社的數位電視專利，以及被告的產品被禁止向美國進口或在美國銷售。此次為位於日本的船井電機株式會社和其位於美國的關聯公司船井有限公司取得的勝利是針對14家被告的，其中包括Vizio, TPV, Amtran, and Syntax-Brillian 。美國國際貿易委員會的調查是在船井公司提交正式訴狀，主張違反1930年《關稅法》第337條後於2007年11月開始的。美富取得案件勝利的團隊由合夥人Karl Kramer 領導，由合夥人Harold McElhinny、Hector Gallegos、Busey 、Louise Stoupe、Moto Araki、Nicole Smith、Mark Danis 和Anthony Press提供協助。Taiwan inTellecTual ProPerTy QuarTerly newsleTTer MoFo achieves iTc win for Funai The victory for Japan-based Funai The Morrison & Foerster winning in Patent infringement suit Electric and its affiliate, U.S.-based team was led by partner Karl Kramer, On April 10, the U.S. International Funai Corporation, Inc., comes against with assistance from partners Harold Trade Commission (ITC) issued 14 respondents, including Vizio, McElhinny, Hector Gallegos, Brian a final determination and remedy TPV, Amtran, Proview, and Syntax-Busey, Louise Stoupe, Moto Araki, order finding that the respondents Brillian. The Investigation before the Nicole Smith, Mark Danis, and infringe Funai Electric Co., Ltd.’s ITC began in November 2007, after Anthony Press. digital television patent and that Funai filed a formal complaint alleging their products shall be barred from violations of Section 337 of the Tariff importation or sale in the U.S. Act of 1930. ????,??????? ???????????? Proview, and Syntax-Brillian ? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???,???????? ??????????? ???????????? 4?10?,???????? ?,????1930?«?? ?Clearwater ?????? ?(ITC)???????? ?»?337???2007?11? ?,Evapco??????? ??,????????? ???? ???????????? ????????????? ?,?????????? ?????????? ?? alexander Hadjis (?? ???????????? ????? Karl Kramer ?)??? Matt Vlissides, ??,????Harold yan wang(??)?Paul ???????????? Mcelhinny?Hector Kletzly????? Vivian lei ???????????? Gallegos?Brian Busey ? (???)??? ???????????? louise stoupe?Moto araki? ?????14????,? nicole smith?Mark Danis ? ??? Vizio, TPV, Amtran, anthony Press????? This newsletter addresses recent intellectual property updates. Because of its generality, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. If you wish to change an address, add a subscriber, or comment on this newsletter, please email Michael Zwerin at mzwerin@mofo.com in Palo Alto, David Harvey at dharvey@mofo.com in Washington, D.C. or Priscilla Chen at priscillachen@mofo.com in Greater China. ©2009 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All Rights Reserved. morrison & foerster llp — page 24 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3dd9744d-c43e-4e84-91c5-adc67ffb677a