請求項1記載,在該板的上下兩端,至少有兩排交替的凸處及凹處,該凸處與凹處實質上相同大小(substantially the same dimension)…而一排的凹處與另一排的凸處相鄰接(adjacent)。(within each said pattern each of said projections and recesses in each one of said at least two rows within said pattern being of substantially the same dimension, wherein within each said pattern said recess of one row is adjacent said projection of the other row)。請求項2則記載,其為「請求項1的隔熱結構組,而該隔熱結構組是一個隔熱結構塊。」[2]
前案訴訟:Reward Wall案
2011年2月,IntegraSpec公司對包含Reward Wall公司及Nudura公司在內的多家公司提起侵權訴訟,主張他們侵害其第’933號專利。被告要求地區法院先解釋系爭專利請求項1與19中的「實質上相同大小」(substantially the same dimension) 和「相鄰接」(adjacent)這兩個詞。
地區法院在2012年6月召開馬克曼聽證會(Markman hearing)。對於「相鄰接」這個詞,地區法院解釋為「在相同的嵌板或邊緣上鄰接」(next to ... on the same panel or sidewall)[3]。地區法院並認為,根據申請歷程,由於系爭專利強調過去的連接有一排,而系爭專利應該有兩排[4]。最後,關於「實質上相同大小」,地區法院解釋為「同樣長、寬、體積,差距不能超過10%」(the same measurable length, breadth, area and volume, with only minor variations in dimension of up to about 10%)[5]。
聯邦上訴巡迴法院指出,由於爭點禁反言原則並非專屬於聯邦巡迴上訴法院,所以對於該原則之採用,其乃根據該案地區法院所在之巡迴區的判例。而該案屬於第八巡迴法院,根據第八巡迴法院Robinette v. Jones案[15]之標準,爭點禁反言有五項要件:
1.在第二案件中主張爭點排除所對抗的當事人,必須是前案當事人或與之有密切關係(in privity with a party);2.所欲排除的爭點,必須與前案的爭點相同(same);3.所欲排除的爭點必須在前案中被真正爭訟過;4.所欲排除爭點必須被一有效終局判決所判斷過;5.前案之該判決,必須是前案判決的必要部分(essential to the prior judgment)[16]。
IntegraSpec公司主張,後案所主張的請求項為第2項,而Reward Wall案所涉及的請求項為第1項和第19項,所以前後兩案的爭點並不相同。但Airlite公司認為,請求項2和請求項1一樣,都有「相鄰接」與「實質相同大小」等字眼。聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為,在前案中,IntegraSpec公司只是挑選代表的請求項1和請求項19,並不表示其他請求項的解釋不受拘束。而且,是因為系爭專利在訴訟中經過單方再審查(ex parte reexaminatin),刪除請求項1,而合併到請求項2,所以在後案才主張侵害請求項2。由於兩個請求項均有相同的限制條件,因此兩案的爭點一樣 [26]。
此外,聯邦巡迴上訴法院指出,在解釋請求項時,同一用語在整個專利間應採取一致解釋(claim terms are to be construed consistently throughout a patent)[27]。
Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics, Co., No. 8:12-cv-151, 2016 WL 5107131, at *9. (D. Neb. Mar. 2, 2016).
Id.at *9-10.
Phil-Insul v. Airlite, 854 F.3d at 1354.
Federal Circuit Rule 36(“The court may enter a judgment of affirmance without opinion, citing this rule, when it determines that any of the following conditions exist and an opinion would have no precedential value:(a) the judgment, decision, or order of the trial court appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous;(b) the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict is sufficient;(c) the record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings;(d) the decision of an administrative agency warrants affirmance under the standard of review in the statute authorizing the petition for review; or (e) a judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law.”).