企業(yè)涉外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)防御及管理

1、企業(yè)涉外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)防御及管理Defense and Strategy of Intellectual Property InfringementOverview 目錄目錄 Introduction to Direct, Indirect, Willful Infringement, USC271 as well as some related cases 直接侵權(quán)，間接侵權(quán)，故意侵權(quán)，271 條款引誘侵權(quán)及相關(guān)案例 Steps for avoidance of patent Infringement in the United States, FTO as well as some rela

2、ted cases 防止侵權(quán)策略、FTO及相關(guān)案例Hidden Traps“走出去”的“尷尬”Basic Attribute of Patent Right: Regional Feature專利的基本屬性：地域性專利的基本屬性：地域性 Patent is a right granted by the government, and its only valid in the authorized countries.專利是政府授予的權(quán)利，只在授權(quán)國境內(nèi)有效。 The infringement occurs when the product appears in the authorized

3、countries.產(chǎn)品專利必須要產(chǎn)品在授權(quán)國內(nèi)出現(xiàn)才侵權(quán)。 The patent can only be infringed in the countries where its authorized.同樣地，方法專利只會(huì)在被授權(quán)的國家境內(nèi)實(shí)施該專利的行為所侵害。America Patent Infringement美國專利侵權(quán)美國專利侵權(quán)Direct Infringement(Client) - 35 USC 271(a) 直接侵權(quán) (當(dāng)事人) -271(a)條款I(lǐng)ndirect Infringement (Accomplice)間接侵權(quán) (共犯) Induce infringement

4、35 USC 271(b) 引誘侵權(quán) 271(b)條款 Contributory infringement 35 USC 271(c) 共同(參與)侵權(quán)271(c) 條款The behaviors above are viewed as infringements only in USA, the direct infringements outside USA are stated as follows:以上行為在美國國內(nèi)才侵權(quán)，下面是美國境外的間接侵權(quán)行為: Provide components to assemble abroad 35 USC 271(f)(1)提供部件到國外組合 27

5、1(f)(1)條款 Import American patented methods to produce products abroad 35 USC 271(g) 進(jìn)口美國專利方法在國外制造的產(chǎn)品- 271(g)條款 Provide patented components for specific use 35 USC 271(f)(2)提供專利特用的零件271(f)(2)條款Patent Infringement under US Law美國法中的專利侵權(quán)美國法中的專利侵權(quán) In the U.S., a patent provides its proprietor with the ri

6、ght to exclude others from utilizing the invention claimed in the patent. 在美國，專利給予專利權(quán)人排他性的特權(quán) ，對(duì)其擁有的技術(shù)具有獨(dú)占使用權(quán)。 Should a person utilize that invention, without permission of the patent proprietor, they infringe that patent. 在無專利權(quán)人允許的情況下使用該發(fā)明，就是專利侵權(quán)。 See 35 U.S. Code Section 271 參見見美國專利法271條Extraterrat

7、orial Aspects of US Law治外法權(quán)治外法權(quán) The general rule is that U.S. Patents only cover activities in the U.S. 美國專利法通常只適用于在美國境內(nèi)的行為 However, in certain circumstances, both activities originating outside of the U.S. & sales occurring outside of the U.S. may be implicated by U.S. law 然而在特定情況下，從美國境外始發(fā)的行為和在

8、美國境外的銷售也受美國法管轄Direct Infringement直接侵權(quán)直接侵權(quán) A person directly infringes a patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the US any patented invention, without authority, during the term of the patent 35 USC 271(a) 美國專利法271(a)條款規(guī)定：未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人許可，制造、使用、銷售、授權(quán)他人銷售或進(jìn)口入美國的行為，是直接侵權(quán)行為。35 USC

9、 271(a)271（a）條款條款 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. 除

10、法律另外規(guī)定外，未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人允許，制造、使用、銷售、授權(quán)他人銷售或進(jìn)口專利產(chǎn)品到美國的行為，是本條款中規(guī)定的侵權(quán)行為。Direct Infringement (cases)直接侵權(quán)（案例）Japanese corporation A sold products to Asian corporation B. B required A to tap the boxes of the products with the address of the subsidiary corporation of American corporation B to make it convenient for

11、B to send them to USA Is it an infringement?日本日本A公司賣產(chǎn)品給一個(gè)亞洲公司賣產(chǎn)品給一個(gè)亞洲B公司，公司，B公司要求公司要求A公司把產(chǎn)品箱子貼公司把產(chǎn)品箱子貼上美國上美國B公司的子公司的地址方便公司的子公司的地址方便B公司直接寄到美國公司直接寄到美國 直接侵權(quán)嗎？直接侵權(quán)嗎？(MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)Canadian corporation A bought the products

12、 of Chinese corporation B, and sold them to American corporation C; The trade was processed in Canada. Is it a direct infringement?加拿大加拿大A公司采購中國公司采購中國B公司的產(chǎn)品，賣給美國公司的產(chǎn)品，賣給美國C公司；交貨是公司；交貨是在加拿大在加拿大 直接侵權(quán)嗎直接侵權(quán)嗎?Yes. (LightCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Taiwanese

13、 corporation A produced electronic products in Shenzhen, and the trade was processed in China. Before the trade, A sent some samples to USA and got UL. Is it a direct infringement?臺(tái)灣臺(tái)灣A公司在深圳制造電子產(chǎn)品賣給公司，在中國公司在深圳制造電子產(chǎn)品賣給公司，在中國交貨，交貨前寄了幾個(gè)樣品到美國取得交貨，交貨前寄了幾個(gè)樣品到美國取得UL認(rèn)證認(rèn)證 直接侵權(quán)嗎？直接侵權(quán)嗎？(Fellowes v. Michilin Pr

14、osperity Co., 491 F. Supp. 2d 571, 583 (E.D. Va. 2007).) Indirect Infringement間接侵權(quán)The Patent Act does not directly distinguish “direct” and “indirect” infringement. 美國專利法并沒有直接區(qū)分“直接侵權(quán)”與“間接侵權(quán)” 271(b) and (c) are typically grouped together as “indirect” ways of infringing a patent: 271（ b）和（c）條款合并規(guī)定了“間

15、接的”專利侵權(quán)方式 271(b) creates a type of infringement described as “active inducement of infringement.” 271（b）的“積極引誘”侵權(quán) 271(c) creates liability for those who have contributed to the infringement of a patent. 271c對(duì)侵權(quán)行為提供幫助者的法律責(zé)任 Both types of indirect infringement can only occur when there has actually be

16、en a direct infringement of the patent. 上述2種間接侵權(quán)只發(fā)生在實(shí)際存在一個(gè)直接侵權(quán)的情況下35 USC 271(b), (c)271（b）和（c）條款(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer （b）條款中，積極引誘侵權(quán)者應(yīng)被視為侵權(quán)方(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a

17、component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and n

18、ot a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. （c）條款針對(duì)專利產(chǎn)品組件的生產(chǎn)、銷售、組裝，該部件是發(fā)明的一部分且當(dāng)事人明知該部件是特別為專利產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)制造的，且沒有其他非專利侵權(quán)的商業(yè)用途，該當(dāng)事人是輔助（貢獻(xiàn)）侵權(quán)。35 USC 271(b) (Inducement)271（b）條款（引誘侵權(quán)） Section 271(b) covers situations where

19、 a party actively induces the infringement of a patent by encouraging, aiding, or otherwise causing another person or entity to infringe a patent. 271（b）條款規(guī)定，一方積極主動(dòng)引誘侵權(quán)，通過鼓勵(lì)、協(xié)助、或其他手段促成第三方完成的侵權(quán)行為。 The potential inducer must actually be aware of the patent and intend for their actions to result in a t

20、hird party infringing that patent. 潛在的引誘者必須意識(shí)到專利的存在且希望其引誘行為會(huì)導(dǎo)致第三方做出侵權(quán)行為。 35 USC 271(b) Supreme Court Weighs In271 (b) 條款條款-最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域 Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, May 31, 2011 Global-Tech電器股份有限公司與SEB集團(tuán)的案例，第10-6號(hào)案例，2011年五月31日 Global-Tech Appliances Inc. and Pentalpha Ent

21、erprises, Ltd. (collectively “Pentalpha”), a Hong Kong appliance maker, sold a deep-fryer to 3rd parties that was an alleged copy of one patented by SEB. 香港華利美公司 Pentalpha將深度油炸鍋的專利賣給第三方，而該技術(shù)被起訴為SEB集團(tuán)的專利仿制品35 USC 271(b) Supreme Court Weighs In 271 (b) 條款條款-最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域Facts showed that Pentalph

22、a copied SEBs design and knew that the design was patented 事實(shí)證明，香港華利美公司 Pentalpha 仿制了SEB電子油炸鍋，并且知道這是專利產(chǎn)品。 Pentalpha contacted a U.S. patent attorney and obtained a freedom to use opinion. Pentalpha與美國專利局聯(lián)系過并獲得了不侵權(quán)意見書。They never told the attorney of the patent, or that the design was a copy. Pentalph

23、a沒告訴律師他們制造的是仿制品；Pentalpha started selling copied friers to various distributors, who sold them in the U.S. Pentalpha公司銷售仿制品給分銷商，分銷商把產(chǎn)品賣到美國。SEB sued Pentalpha under 271(b) SEB基于271（b）條款告Pentalpha Win at the district court, and subsequently appeal 在地方法院勝訴然后進(jìn)一步上訴Federal Circuit Decision聯(lián)邦巡回法院判決 Holding

24、: Induced infringement under 35 USC 271(b) requires 依據(jù)：271（b）條款規(guī)定下的引誘侵權(quán)要求 knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement; and 知道有專利存在并且做出引誘侵權(quán)的行為 deliberate indifference (or recklessness) to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by section 271(b) 故意

25、忽視有專利存在的可能性 A reckless defendant is one who merely knows of a substantial and unjustified risk of wrongdoing. 被告明知其行為很可能是違規(guī)的。 Supreme Court Decision最高法院判決 Willful blindness is grounded in U.S. criminal law “故意視而不見”是美國刑法中的最重罪責(zé) Defendant may be found liable if a finding of “deliberate shielding themse

26、lves from clear evidence” 被告如果被發(fā)現(xiàn)是“故意忽視明顯證據(jù)”，那么應(yīng)追究其法律責(zé)任 Despite the higher standard, Supreme Court affirms the Federal CircuitWhy? 盡管是一個(gè)很高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，最高法院肯定了聯(lián)邦巡回法院的判決為什么？ Failure to disclose that the frier was a copy to the patent attorney was strong evidence that the actions were intentional 沒有向?qū)＠砣斯_煎鍋是仿

27、制品的行為是證明其故意行為的強(qiáng)有力證據(jù)；35 USC 271(c) (Contributory)271（c）條款輔助（貢獻(xiàn)）侵權(quán)）條款輔助（貢獻(xiàn)）侵權(quán) “Contributory infringement” is triggered when a seller provides a part or component that, while not itself infringing of any patent, has a particular use of some other machine or composition that is covered by a patent. “輔助(

28、貢獻(xiàn))侵權(quán)”是當(dāng)賣方提供部件，其部件本身不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)，但部件有專有用途，用來組建成專利保護(hù)的產(chǎn)品。 However, if there are other valid uses for the product, or it is a “staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,” the seller has likely not contributed to the third partys infringement. 然而，如果該部件有其他有效的用途或存在其他顯而易見的

29、非侵權(quán)的商業(yè)替代用途，賣方的行為不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。35 USC 271(c)271（c）條款）條款Contributory infringement can be thought of as a type of inducement, in which the intent to cause direct infringement can be inferred from the fact that the product offered for sale is suitable only for patent infringement. 輔助（貢獻(xiàn)）侵權(quán)可以被認(rèn)定為引誘侵權(quán)行為的一類。其存在的故意

30、侵權(quán)意圖可以通過該產(chǎn)品事實(shí)上只適用于侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品這一事實(shí)進(jìn)行證明?！癢hen a manufacturer includes in its product a component that can only infringe, the inference that infringement is intended is unavoidable.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 法院判定“部件只能用于侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品，其侵權(quán)意圖是顯而易見的”Joint Infringement共同

31、侵權(quán)共同侵權(quán)Joint infringement requires an agency relationship or contractual obligation between the jointly infringing parties. 共同侵權(quán)需要存在于共同侵權(quán)人中間的一個(gè)代理關(guān)系或合同關(guān)系。Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 2012) (en banc) Akamai asserted that Limelight directly infringed a patent directed t

32、o a method of delivering content over the web. The patent claims each required a step of “tagging” objects on a web page. There was no dispute that Limelight did not tag objects. However, Limelights user documentation included instructions for tagging, and its customers would typically perform the t

33、agging step. 爭(zhēng)議專利是通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)標(biāo)記的一種方法。標(biāo)記是專利實(shí)施的必須步驟。En banc court found infringement, currently on appeal to Supreme CourtCase Study: Ricoh v. Quanta案例研究：案例研究： Ricoh 與與 Quanta Ricoh has claims to writing and recording disks on an optical drive. Ricoh公司有關(guān)于光盤讀寫的專利 Quanta manufactures, but sells to third partie

34、s who incorporate into computers Q公司生產(chǎn)，銷售給第三方，其產(chǎn)品裝入電腦中 Federal Circuit finds that Quanta 聯(lián)邦巡回法院判決 Should not be permitted to escape liability, just because the end product has substantial non-infringing uses Q公司仍然要承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任，即便他提出其最終產(chǎn)品是不侵權(quán) Its the component that matters 雖然是組件，但是仍然有關(guān)聯(lián)35 USC 271(c) 271(c)

35、 條款 “When a manufacturer includes in its product a component that can only infringe, the inference that infringement is intended is unavoidable.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 271（c）條款中判定，產(chǎn)品的組件只是為了侵權(quán)，就可以推定其侵權(quán)的意圖是明確的。35 USC 271(f)271（f）條款）條款 Section 27

36、1(f) is meant to prevent parties from avoiding infringement in the U.S. by shipping a patented device in smaller components and then assembling the components overseas. 271(f)條款是為防止將美國專利產(chǎn)品的部件運(yùn)到海外組裝，從而規(guī)避侵權(quán)責(zé)任。 Creates a cause of action for infringement for supplying components of a patented invention

37、for assembly outside the US. 法律創(chuàng)造了這類侵權(quán)可訴的行為，即把未組裝的部件出口到美國境外，在美國境外組裝成產(chǎn)品，也會(huì)構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。Outside USA 271(f) Infringement Case 美國境外美國境外271(f)條款侵權(quán)案例條款侵權(quán)案例Microsoft put “audio transferring program” in disks and sent them abroad , allowing the manufactures to install them in PCs and sell the PCs. 微軟把含有“聲音轉(zhuǎn)碼程序”的軟件放

38、在光盤送到國外讓制造商把該軟件裝到電腦里去販賣。American district court and Federal circuit court judged: 美國地方法院及聯(lián)邦巡回法庭判決： The program is patented “component” 此軟件是專利的“部件” Although the original disks were not installed in the PCs, the copied program is infringed component. 雖然原來的光碟沒有裝入電腦，復(fù)制的軟件是侵權(quán)的部件。American Supreme Court(20

39、07) Judgment: 美國最高法院(2007)判決： 35 USC 271(f ) protects only tangible components, excluding programs 35 USC 271(f)只涵蓋實(shí)體的“部件”，不涵蓋軟件 The original disk did not installed in PCs, and the copied ones do not count 原來的光碟沒有裝入電腦，復(fù)制的軟件不算。35 USC 271(f)(1)271(f)(1)條款 (f)(1) Whoever without authority supplies or c

40、auses to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that wo

41、uld infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. (f)(1)任何人未經(jīng)許可，在美國或由美國提供或使人提供”受專利保護(hù)的發(fā)明的未被組合的全部或主要組件”，且積極促使該組件在美國境外進(jìn)行組合；若這組合行為在美國境內(nèi)是屬侵犯專利權(quán)，則由美國提供或使人提供該組件亦屬于專利侵權(quán)行為。35 USC 271(f)(2)271(f)(2)條款(f)(2) Whoever without authority supplies or cau

42、ses to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in

43、 part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. (f)(2) 任何人未經(jīng)許可，在美國或從美國提供或促使提供專門為

44、實(shí)施一項(xiàng)專利發(fā)明所用之組件，且該組件不是普通物品或具有實(shí)質(zhì)非侵權(quán)用途之商品，盡管該組件尚未部分地或整體地組裝起來，但該行為人明知該組件乃專門用于實(shí)施專利發(fā)明，且希望其在美國境外被組裝起來，假如這種組裝在美國境內(nèi)將侵犯專利權(quán)，則行為人應(yīng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。35 USC 271(f)271（f）條款 Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical, 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). St. Jude shipped implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) overseas. Cardi

45、ac, the patentee, had a method claim to administer a particular shock sequence using the defibrillator. Cardiac argued St. Jude infringed under 271(f) where St. Jude shipped ICDs overseas that were then used to perform the patentees method. St. Jude 將心臟除顫器運(yùn)往國外. Cardiac作為專利權(quán)人，擁有一個(gè)除顫器中應(yīng)用的心臟刺激方法權(quán)利要求。Ca

46、rdiac辯稱St. Jude將心臟除顫器運(yùn)往國外侵犯了271（f）條款下心臟刺激方法的權(quán)利要求； The Federal Circuit held Section 271(f) does not encompass devices, supplied outside the US, that may be used to perform a patented method. 聯(lián)邦巡回法院判定271（f）條款并不包含在美國境外銷售的使用專利方法 的設(shè)備35 USC 271(f)271(f)條款Cardiac cont. For many patent holders, where both d

47、evice claims and method claims can be included in issued patents, this case will not have much effect. 許多專利持有者，當(dāng)專利包含設(shè)備權(quán)利要求與方法的權(quán)利要求，本案對(duì)這類專利并沒有太大影響。 However, for technologies where only method claims are available, this case can limit export damages (enforcement outside the US). 然而，對(duì)只存在方法專利，本案可以對(duì)出口損害（

48、在美國境外的enforcement）進(jìn)行限制。 Try to include many claim types (e.g., device, method, and manufacture) and write claims from the perspective of a potential infringer. 試圖包含更多的權(quán)利要求類型和書面權(quán)利要求35 USC 271(g) 271(g)條款(g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses wit

49、hin the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of

50、this title, not be considered to be so made after凡未經(jīng)授權(quán)而使用已獲美國工藝專利生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品，如果在這種工藝專利期內(nèi)將其進(jìn)口到美國或出售，銷售，或在美國境內(nèi)使用將承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。 .這種根據(jù)專利工藝生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品通過下面的步驟可以規(guī)避侵權(quán)： (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or （1）后續(xù)工序發(fā)生重大改變; (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product. （2）變成了其他產(chǎn)品瑣碎和不

51、必要的組件35 USC 271(g) (“Product-by-process infringement) 271（g）條款（產(chǎn)品-流程侵權(quán)）Under Section 271(g), it is illegal to “import into the United States,” offer to sell, sell, “or use within the United States a product which is” produced by a patented process (unless product is materially changed or becomes non

52、-essential component of another product) 271（g）規(guī)定，“進(jìn)口到美國銷售或在美國境內(nèi)使用”是違法行為。Patent-by-process infringement occurs even if the patented process is actually performed in a foreign country. 適用于在外國執(zhí)行專利程序方法的行為The party who imports the product into the US is liable (not the actual manufacture of the product,

53、 unless they are the same party). 進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品到美國的一方負(fù)有責(zé)任（而不是實(shí)際制造方，除非他們是同一方）。 美國境外271(g)條款侵權(quán)案例outside USA 271(g) infringement case Pfizer v. Anhui 輝瑞公司告合肥香料廠侵權(quán) Anhui manufactured a sweetener (maltol) in China, that Pfizer alleged infringed their process patent； 輝瑞指控合肥香料廠用輝瑞專利的方法制造麥芽酚 (maltol) Anhui sold to S

54、inochem, who sold to F&S, who imported to U.S. 合肥香料廠將麥芽酚賣給中化集團(tuán)，中化集團(tuán)再將麥芽酚賣給美國F&S公司，后者將麥芽酚進(jìn)口到美國. Summary Judgement granted for Anhui 對(duì)于輝瑞的總判決 Judgement: Anhui manufacture did not participate in “import”, thus did not violet 271(g). Only F&S is liable. 法院裁定：合肥香料廠不參與“進(jìn)口”所以沒有違反271(g)條款，只有F&am

55、p;S公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law案例法（判例）案例法（判例） Standard Havens v. Gencor Dec. 1991 Gencor sold asphalt-production plants that used the patented method for producing asphalt. Gencor公司使用專利方法生產(chǎn)銷售瀝青。 One asphalt-production plant sold to foreign customer, who did not import products to U.S. 一個(gè)瀝青產(chǎn)品公司賣產(chǎn)品給一

56、個(gè)外國客戶，該客戶并沒有進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品到美國 271(g): the Court found no infringement because there was no importation to U.S. 271（g）條款：法院認(rèn)定無侵權(quán)，因?yàn)闆]有進(jìn)口到美國的行為。 271(f): the Court unequivocally stated that there is no implication of 271(f) by the sale of non-patented apparatus to foreign customer for use outside of U.S. 271（f）條款

57、：法院判定不適用271f條款中關(guān)于銷售非專利產(chǎn)品給在美國以外的外國客戶。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law案例法（判例）案例法（判例） Synaptic Pharm. v. MDS Panlabs June 2002 Synaptic Pharm. patented a process related to biological testing. MDS affiliate Panlabs Taiwan conducted the patented process outside the U.S. MDS imported the results of the process int

58、o the U.S. from Panlabs Taiwan. Synaptic公司有一個(gè)生物測(cè)試流程的專利。MDS臺(tái)灣子公司在美國境外使用該專利流程。MDS公司進(jìn)口該流程的結(jié)果到美國。 271(g): the Court found no infringement because diagnostic “results” are not “products” derived from patented manufacturing methods. 271（g）條款：法院認(rèn)定沒有侵權(quán)，因?yàn)椤敖Y(jié)果”不是從專利方法生產(chǎn)的“產(chǎn)品”。 271(f): the Court expressly state

59、d that 271(f) protects against the export of components of patented inventions, not against the foreign use of process patents. 法院明確表示271（f）條款保護(hù)進(jìn)口的發(fā)明產(chǎn)品的組件。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law案例法（判例）案例法（判例） Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft March 2005 Microsoft software infringed patented method for automatically in

60、voking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects. Golden master disks containing the infringing software code were exported for replication abroad for sale outside of the U.S. 微軟把含有“聲音轉(zhuǎn)碼程序”的軟件放在光盤送到國外讓制造商把該軟件裝到電腦里去販賣。 271(g): not implicated as no importation to U.S. 271(g) 沒有進(jìn)口到美國 271(f): the Co