作者簡介：
龍安平 美國專利律師及美國訴訟律師
現任：北美智權教育訓練處
美國專利律師、美國訴訟律師
經歷：
- 台灣某大智權公司 美國專利律師
- 美國阿肯色州本頓縣 公設辯護人
- 美國阿肯色州小岩城Richard Quiggle P.A.法律事務所美國訴訟律師
- 美國阿肯色州污染防治與生態部實習生
|
申請專利到底有什麼好處呢？好的，對於這問題我可以告訴你們，就是專利可以讓你聲請禁制令的救濟。那是什麼呢？強制救濟令／禁制令的意思，就是可以經由法院裁判頒發的命令，有效制止競爭者去進行特定的行為。在美國，當你遭遇立即性、無法挽回的傷害威脅時，你就會去聲請禁制令。在專利的世界裡，這就表示你的產品可能因為你的競爭對手宣稱他們的專利被該產品侵害，而不被允許在美國境內販售。
近期有個知名的案例就是蘋果跟三星的案子，在最初的階段，北加州聯邦法官高蘭惠（Lucy Koh）裁定駁回蘋果(Apple)所聲請的禁制令，不讓其禁止三星(Samsung)在美國販賣那些蘋果宣稱遭到侵權的手機。裁定裡提到其駁回禁制令的聲請的理由之一，是因為蘋果所要求的禁制令救濟範圍太廣泛了，她認為由於這個禁制令的聲請包括了三星太多的手機機型，若全部都禁止販賣的話就太過分了。
但最近聯邦巡迴上訴法院卻逆轉了這項裁定。儘管高蘭惠法官在考量所有相關的因素，以決定駁回蘋果的禁制令聲請（即強制三星的涉嫌侵權手機退出美國市場)時，都是非常小心遵從所有的法律規定，但聯邦巡迴上訴法院裁定認為，高蘭惠法官原裁定所考量的因素之一，也就是她認為該禁制令聲請的救濟範圍太廣的問題，並不應該被納為裁判的考量，所以發回。
聯邦巡迴法院認為，範圍太廣並不是法院應該考量的因素。聲請禁制令的一方，應向法院證明的，應該是其受有無法彌補的傷害，形式上喪失應得利益，及與公益無違。衡量這些因素後，吾人會發現蘋果的禁制令聲請是較有理的，因為即使三星會因此失去市場份額，但這也都是三星涉嫌侵害蘋果iPhone手機的設計與發明專利所導致的。
聯邦巡迴上訴法院是這樣說的：「蘋果批評地方法院以禁制令所要求的救濟範圍太廣為由，而駁回其禁制令救濟的聲請。蘋果抗辯說，與法院的禁制令判決先例一樣，它已經將禁制令的範圍，適當的侷限在那些侵權產品，以及與其並無實質差異的產品上。」所以，所有三星的產品，只要與蘋果的iPhone並無實質差異的產品，就可能會被包含在禁制令的範圍中。吾人尚不能得知高蘭惠法官會以什麼為基礎，或會不會決定頒發蘋果聲請之禁制令。然而很清楚的是，該項具有如此寬廣救濟範圍的禁制令，如果頒發可能會對三星在美國的商機造成嚴重的衝擊，特別是對於手機這樣一個高度競爭也快速變化的市場而言。
從這個裁定來看，吾人可以清楚知道禁制令所涵蓋的範圍可能是相當廣泛的，一個擁有智慧財產權(IP)的人，可以對競爭對手的商業行為提出禁制令以取得救濟，其所涵蓋的範圍將比涉嫌侵權產品更多，因為它甚至會包括與其無實質差異的侵權產品。
這個法定判斷標準的應用，意指禁制令救濟對專利擁有人來說，已成為一個更強大的法律工具，也對想進入美國市場的可能侵權者具有警惕的作用。因此在進入美國市場時，越來越重要的是去學習並了解若忽略智慧財產權所可能造成的後果，例如進行產品無侵害檢索(freedom-to-operate searches)或取得產品不侵權報告等，特別要提醒的是，你如果忽略智慧財產權，或未取得如此報告，將會影響你在美國市場販賣未侵權產品的能力。
About the Author:
James Long
NAIP Education and Training Group / US Patent Attorney, US Attorney-At-Law
Experiences：
- Taiwan-based IP Group – US Patent Attorney
- Benton County Arkansas – Public Defender
- Richard Quiggle P.A. Little Rock Arkansas – US Attorney-At-Law
- Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology – Internship
|
What are patents good for?
James Long / NAIP Education and Training Group, US Patent Attorney, US Attorney-At-Law
What are patents good for? Well, one thing I can tell you they are good for is to ask for injunctive
One such recent notable case is Apple v. Samsung. At the first stage, Federal Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California decided against allowing Apple to have an injunction to prevent Samsung selling their allegedly infringing phones in the US. She said that one reason for denying the injunction was that the injunctive relief requested by Apple would be too broad, as there were too many models of Samsung phones included in the request and to stop them all would be asking too much.
Recently the Federal Circuit reversed this decision. Though Judge Koh was very careful to follow all the rules when she balanced the factors in deciding not to grant Apple an injunction to keep Samsung’s allegedly infringing phones out of the US, she considered one factor that the Federal Circuit explained was not a factor to take into consideration. This was that the injunctive relief requested was too broad.
The Federal Circuit said broadness was not a factor. The factors that the party requesting the relief must prove are irreparable harm, in the form of lost profit, and serving the public interest, and that the balance of these factors weighed in Apple’s favor. This balance weighed in Apple’s favor because, though Samsung would also lose market, it is Samsung that allegedly infringed Apple’s iPhone design and utility patents.
What the Federal Court said is “Apple criticizes the district court for relying on the breadth of its requested injunction as a reason to deny injunctive relief. Apple argues that—consistent with this court’s injunction precedent—it properly requested an injunction limited to the infringing products and products not more than colorably different.” So all of Samsung’s phones that are “not more than colorably different from” Apple’s iPhone may be included in an injunction. It’s still not decided whether and on what basis Judge Lucy Koh will grant the injunction. It is however clear that injunctive relief of this broadness will probably severely impact Samsung’s commercial opportunities in the US, especially in a competitive and fast-moving market like mobile phones.
From this decision, it is clear that injunctive relief may be quite broad. An IP holder can request that injunctive relief on a competitor’s commercial actions cover more than just the alleged infringing products, including even those products “not more than colorably different from” the infringing ones.
The application of this legal standard means that injunctive relief becomes an even more powerful legal tool to wield for patent-holders and also one for possible infringers to be wary of before entering the US market. It therefore becomes even more important to study and understand the possible consequences of ignoring IP rights when entering the US market, such as in carrying out freedom-to-operate searches or setting up non-infringement opinions; especially if ignoring such rights can affect your ability to sell non-infringing products in the US market.
更多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
