針對第271(b)條誘導侵權的部分,雖然美國專利法沒有明確定義誘導侵權,但美國聯邦法院闡釋,誘導侵權指誘導侵權人明知且有意誘導直接侵權人侵害專利 (註3);換言之專利權人必須證明誘導侵權人具有構成直接侵權行為之意圖(actual intent to cause the acts that constitute ) (註4)。
2008年聯邦巡迴法院,在Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. (註6) 一案處理多方當事人聯合侵害某一方法專利請求項。該案上訴法院指出,多方當事人聯合侵害某一方法請求項時,專利持有人若要證明直接侵權,必須證明其中某一被告行為足以構成「控制或引導」實施整個專利方法;因此,所有方法中步驟完成的侵權結果,可歸責於控制方(controlling party),又稱「控制意識」(mastermind)(註7)。在多方侵權人的情況,如果欠缺控制方,而是由多方均等貢獻(arm length cooperation)聯合運作行為,任何一方均不成立直接侵權。直言之,法院認為直接侵權人,雖然無須完成所有的步驟,但是必須「控制或引導」實施整個專利方法,對於侵權的結果具有控制力。
(2) 倘直接侵權人「控制或引導」第三方行為,則第三人行為可以歸責於控制方
在2008年Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC(註8)一案中,,該案原告指稱網站本身與遠端用戶的行為聯合侵害某一項原告專利。原告指稱遠端用戶的電腦被告所控制,因為被告將Java程式軟體置於遠端用戶電腦,使得用戶的電腦可開始執行程序。以下以此案例來說明多方聯合實施某一專利的狀況:
在Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC案中所爭執的專利為U.S. 5,253,341,其中第17項專利請求項如下:
17. A method for downloading responsive data from a remote server comprising the following steps:
(a) identifying a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
(b) transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to said remote server via an input/output means;
(c) receiving a compressed or non-compressed response to said query at said remote query and data retrieval means from said remote server via said input/output means;
(d) displaying a presentation corresponding to said compressed or non-compressed response on output means;
(e) wherein said compressed or non-compressed response is compressed prior to receipt at said remote query and data retrieval means, and wherein said compressed response is decompressed at said remote query and data retrieval means using an asymmetric decompression technique corresponding to an inverse operation of the technique used to compress said compressed or non-compressed response.
本案中,'341專利請求項第17項,要求二個自然人或是實體完成所有的方法步驟,才構成侵權。因此,必須是由一個傳輸性(transmitting)電腦傳輸某一查詢(query)訊號,而由遠端伺服器,接收與回應該項查詢。依照Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.乙案所建立的判斷標準,被告遠端伺服器雖只執行'341專利請求項第17項之某一部分,但除非原告能證明被告遠端伺服器「引導或控制」 (direction or control)之下接收和回應該項查詢,否則不存在侵權。
在McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp.乙案中(註10), 原告McKesson Technologies Inc所有的美國專利為6757898。 該 '898專利,為方法專利,透過個性化的網頁之使用,以促進醫療服務提供者(Heath Care Provider,以下簡稱醫療單位)和病人之間的溝通方法。 '898專利披露一項發明實施例,該實施例指出'898專利可以運用於提供網頁造訪人特定的資訊與通訊功能。該特定資訊,包含顯然超過一般患者造訪醫生所可以獲得資訊。該網頁還可以讓病人管理與醫療單位之間預約掛號,並要求處方箋延長。
1. A method of automatically and electronically communicating between at least one health-care provider and a plurality of users serviced by the health-care provider, said method comprising the steps of:
initiating a communication by one of the plurality of users to the provider for information, wherein the provider has established a preexisting medical record for each user;
enabling communication by transporting the communication . . . ; electronically comparing content of the communication . . . ;
returning the response to the communication automatically . . . ;
said provider/patient interface providing a fully automated mechanism for generating a personalized page or area within the provider’s Web site for each user serviced by the provider; and
said patient-provider interface service center for dynamically assembling and delivering customer content to said user.
2009年9月聯邦地方法院判決原告敗訴,2011年上訴法院確認地方法院見解。本案在上訴法院針對Single En Rule (單一主體法則)是否適用於共同侵權行為見解歧異,多數與協同意見主張單一主體法則應有適用,少數意見認為單一主體法則與之前聯邦法院所建立的引導與控制前案不符。
多數人的意見認為McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp.乙案啟動My Chart 的功能是病患,而病患並非醫療院所的代理人,病患也欠缺合約義務啟動Mychart的功能,因此直接侵權不成立。而既然原告無法證明直接侵權行為人存在,所以誘導侵權不成立。多數意見與前述Muniauction意見一致,要求直接侵權對於侵權的結果可以控制或引導。