企業(yè)涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)防御及管理課件

企業(yè)涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)防御及管理

DefenseandStrategyofIntellectualPropertyInfringement企業(yè)涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)防御及管理

DefenseandStOverview目錄IntroductiontoDirect,Indirect,WillfulInfringement,USC271aswellassomerelatedcases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StepsforavoidanceofpatentInfringementintheUnitedStates,FTOaswellassomerelatedcases防止侵權(quán)策略、FTO及相關(guān)案例Overview目錄HiddenTraps“走出去”的“尷尬”HiddenTraps“走出去”的“尷尬”BasicAttributeofPatentRight:RegionalFeature

專利的基本屬性：地域性Patentisarightgrantedbythegovernment,andit’sonlyvalidintheauthorizedcountries.

專利是政府授予的權(quán)利，只在授權(quán)國境內(nèi)有效。Theinfringementoccurswhentheproductappearsintheauthorizedcountries.

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)。Thepatentcanonlybeinfringedinthecountrieswhereit’sauthorized.

同樣地，方法專利只會在被授權(quán)的國家境內(nèi)實(shí)施該專利的行為所侵害。BasicAttributeofPatentRighAmericaPatentInfringement

美國專利侵權(quán)DirectInfringement(Client)

-35USC271(a)

直接侵權(quán)(當(dāng)事人)-271(a)條款I(lǐng)ndirectInfringement(Accomplice)間接侵權(quán)(共犯)Induceinfringement–35USC271(b)

引誘侵權(quán)–271(b)條款Contributoryinfringement–35USC271(c)

共同(參與)侵權(quán)–271(c)條款ThebehaviorsaboveareviewedasinfringementsonlyinUSA,thedirectinfringementsoutsideUSAarestatedasfollows: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:Providecomponentstoassembleabroad–35USC271(f)(1)提供部件到國外組合–271(f)(1)條款I(lǐng)mportAmericanpatentedmethodstoproduceproductsabroad35USC271(g)進(jìn)口美國專利方法在國外制造的產(chǎn)品-271(g)條款Providepatentedcomponentsforspecificuse–35USC271(f)(2)提供專利特用的零件–271(f)(2)條款A(yù)mericaPatentInfringement

美國PatentInfringementunderUSLaw

美國法中的專利侵權(quán)IntheU.S.,apatentprovidesitsproprietorwiththerighttoexcludeothersfromutilizingtheinventionclaimedinthepatent.在美國，專利給予專利權(quán)人排他性的特權(quán)，對其擁有的技術(shù)具有獨(dú)占使用權(quán)。Shouldapersonutilizethatinvention,withoutpermissionofthepatentproprietor,theyinfringethatpatent.

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)。See35U.S.CodeSection271

參見見美國專利法271條PatentInfringementunderUSLExtraterratorialAspectsofUSLaw

治外法權(quán)ThegeneralruleisthatU.S.PatentsonlycoveractivitiesintheU.S.

美國專利法通常只適用于在美國境內(nèi)的行為However,incertaincircumstances,bothactivitiesoriginatingoutsideoftheU.S.&salesoccurringoutsideoftheU.S.maybeimplicatedbyU.S.law

然而在特定情況下，從美國境外始發(fā)的行為和在美國境外的銷售也受美國法管轄ExtraterratorialAspectsofUSDirectInfringement

直接侵權(quán)Apersondirectlyinfringesapatentbymaking,using,selling,offeringtosell,orimportingintotheUSanypatentedinvention,withoutauthority,duringthetermofthepatent–35USC271(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。DirectInfringement

直接侵權(quán)Apers35USC271(a)

271（a）條款(a)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthistitle,whoeverwithoutauthoritymakes,uses,offerstosell,orsellsanypatentedinvention,withintheUnitedStates,orimportsintotheUnitedStatesanypatentedinventionduringthetermofthepatenttherefor,infringesthepatent.

除法律另外規(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。35USC271(a)

271（a）條款(a)ExceDirectInfringement(cases)

直接侵權(quán)（案例）JapanesecorporationAsoldproductstoAsiancorporationB.BrequiredAtotaptheboxesoftheproductswiththeaddressofthesubsidiarycorporationofAmericancorporationBtomakeitconvenientforBtosendthemtoUSA→Isitaninfringement?日本A公司賣產(chǎn)品給一個(gè)亞洲B公司，B公司要求A公司把產(chǎn)品箱子貼上美國B公司的子公司的地址方便B公司直接寄到美國直接侵權(quán)嗎？

No.沒有。(MEMCElec.Materials,Inc.v.MitsubishiMaterialsSiliconCorp.,

420F.3d1369(Fed.Cir.2005)CanadiancorporationAboughttheproductsofChinesecorporationB,andsoldthemtoAmericancorporationC;ThetradewasprocessedinCanada.Isitadirectinfringement?加拿大A公司采購中國B公司的產(chǎn)品，賣給美國C公司；交貨是在加拿大直接侵權(quán)嗎?Yes.有。(LightCubes,LLCv.NorthernLightProducts,Inc.,

523F.3d1353(Fed.Cir.2008))TaiwanesecorporationAproducedelectronicproductsinShenzhen,andthetradewasprocessedinChina.Beforethetrade,AsentsomesamplestoUSAandgotUL.Isitadirectinfringement?臺灣A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UL認(rèn)證直接侵權(quán)嗎？Yes

有。(Fellowesv.MichilinProsperityCo.,

491F.Supp.2d571,583(E.D.Va.2007).)DirectInfringement(cases)

直接IndirectInfringement

間接侵權(quán)ThePatentActdoesnotdirectlydistinguish“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)aretypicallygroupedtogetheras“indirect”waysofinfringingapatent:271（b）和（c）條款合并規(guī)定了“間接的”專利侵權(quán)方式§271(b)createsatypeofinfringementdescribedas“activeinducementofinfringement.”271（b）的“積極引誘”侵權(quán)§271(c)createsliabilityforthosewhohavecontributedtotheinfringementofapatent.271c對侵權(quán)行為提供幫助者的法律責(zé)任Bothtypesofindirectinfringementcanonlyoccurwhentherehasactuallybeenadirectinfringementofthepatent.

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IndirectInfringement

間接侵權(quán)The35USC271(b),(c)

271（b）和（c）條款(b)Whoeveractivelyinducesinfringementofapatentshallbeliableasaninfringer（b）條款中，積極引誘侵權(quán)者應(yīng)被視為侵權(quán)方(c)WhoeverofferstosellorsellswithintheUnitedStatesorimportsintotheUnitedStatesacomponentofapatentedmachine,manufacture,combination,orcomposition,oramaterialorapparatusforuseinpracticingapatentedprocess,constitutingamaterialpartoftheinvention,knowingthesametobeespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseinaninfringementofsuchpatent,andnotastaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnon-infringinguse,shallbeliableasacontributoryinfringer.（c）條款針對專利產(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)。35USC271(b),(c)

271（b）和（c）條35USC271(b)(Inducement)

271（b）條款（引誘侵權(quán)）Section271(b)coverssituationswhereapartyactivelyinducestheinfringementofapatentbyencouraging,aiding,orotherwisecausinganotherpersonorentitytoinfringeapatent.

271（b）條款規(guī)定，一方積極主動引誘侵權(quán)，通過鼓勵、協(xié)助、或其他手段促成第三方完成的侵權(quán)行為。Thepotentialinducermustactuallybeawareofthepatentandintendfortheiractionstoresultinathirdpartyinfringingthatpatent.潛在的引誘者必須意識到專利的存在且希望其引誘行為會導(dǎo)致第三方做出侵權(quán)行為。

35USC271(b)(Inducement)

27135USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn

271(b)條款-最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域Global-TechAppliancesInc.v.SEBS.A.,No.10-6,May31,2011Global-Tech電器股份有限公司與SEB集團(tuán)的案例，第10-6號案例，2011年五月31日Global-TechAppliancesInc.andPentalphaEnterprises,Ltd.(collectively“Pentalpha”),aHongKongappliancemaker,soldadeep-fryerto3rdpartiesthatwasanallegedcopyofonepatentedbySEB.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35USC271(b)–SupremeCourt35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn

271(b)條款-最高法院審理的領(lǐng)域FactsshowedthatPentalphacopiedSEB’sdesignandknewthatthedesignwaspatented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。PentalphacontactedaU.S.patentattorneyandobtainedafreedomtouseopinion.Pentalpha與美國專利局聯(lián)系過并獲得了不侵權(quán)意見書。Theynevertoldtheattorneyofthepatent,orthatthedesignwasacopy.Pentalpha沒告訴律師他們制造的是仿制品；Pentalphastartedsellingcopiedfrierstovariousdistributors,whosoldthemintheU.S.

Pentalpha公司銷售仿制品給分銷商，分銷商把產(chǎn)品賣到美國。SEBsuedPentalphaunder271(b)

SEB基于271（b）條款告PentalphaWinatthedistrictcourt,andsubsequentlyappeal在地方法院勝訴然后進(jìn)一步上訴35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtFederalCircuitDecision

聯(lián)邦巡回法院判決Holding:Inducedinfringementunder35USC271(b)requires依據(jù)：271（b）條款規(guī)定下的引誘侵權(quán)要求knowledgethattheinducedactsconstitutepatentinfringement;and知道有專利存在并且做出引誘侵權(quán)的行為deliberateindifference(orrecklessness)toaknownriskthatapatentexistsdoesnotsatisfytheknowledgerequiredbysection271(b)故意忽視有專利存在的可能性Arecklessdefendantisonewhomerelyknowsofasubstantialandunjustifiedriskofwrongdoing.被告明知其行為很可能是違規(guī)的。

FederalCircuitDecision

聯(lián)邦巡回法SupremeCourtDecision

最高法院判決WillfulblindnessisgroundedinU.S.criminallaw

“故意視而不見”是美國刑法中的最重罪責(zé)Defendantmaybefoundliableifafindingof“deliberateshieldingthemselvesfromclearevidence”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Despitethehigherstandard,SupremeCourtaffirmstheFederalCircuit—Why?

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？Failuretodisclosethatthefrierwasacopytothepatentattorneywasstrongevidencethattheactionswereintentional沒有向?qū)＠砣斯_煎鍋是仿制品的行為是證明其故意行為的強(qiáng)有力證據(jù)；SupremeCourtDecision

最高法院判決W35USC271(c)(Contributory)

271（c）條款輔助（貢獻(xiàn)）侵權(quán)“Contributoryinfringement”istriggeredwhenasellerprovidesapartorcomponentthat,whilenotitselfinfringingofanypatent,hasaparticularuseofsomeothermachineorcompositionthatiscoveredbyapatent.

“輔助(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,ifthereareothervalidusesfortheproduct,oritisa“staplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,”thesellerhaslikelynotcontributedtothethirdparty’sinfringement.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非侵權(quán)的商業(yè)替代用途，賣方的行為不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。35USC271(c)(Contributory)

235USC271(c)

271（c）條款Contributoryinfringementcanbethoughtofasatypeofinducement,inwhichtheintenttocausedirectinfringementcanbeinferredfromthefactthattheproductofferedforsaleissuitableonlyforpatentinfringement.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henamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”

RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(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”35USC271(c)

271（c）條款ContribuJointInfringement

共同侵權(quán)Jointinfringementrequiresanagencyrelationshiporcontractualobligationbetweenthejointlyinfringingparties.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。AkamaiTechnologiesv.LimelightNetworks(Fed.Cir.,Aug.31,2012)(enbanc)AkamaiassertedthatLimelightdirectlyinfringedapatentdirectedtoamethodofdeliveringcontentovertheweb.Thepatentclaimseachrequiredastepof“tagging”objectsonawebpage.TherewasnodisputethatLimelightdidnottagobjects.However,Limelight’suserdocumentationincludedinstructionsfortagging,anditscustomerswouldtypicallyperformthetaggingstep.

爭議專利是通過網(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。Enbanccourtfoundinfringement,currentlyonappealtoSupremeCourtJointInfringement

共同侵權(quán)JointiCaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta

案例研究：

Ricoh與QuantaRicohhasclaimstowritingandrecordingdisksonanopticaldrive.

Ricoh公司有關(guān)于光盤讀寫的專利Quantamanufactures,butsellstothirdpartieswhoincorporateintocomputers

Q公司生產(chǎn)，銷售給第三方，其產(chǎn)品裝入電腦中FederalCircuitfindsthatQuanta聯(lián)邦巡回法院判決Shouldnotbepermittedtoescapeliability,justbecausetheendproducthassubstantialnon-infringinguses

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)It’sthecomponentthatmatters雖然是組件，但是仍然有關(guān)聯(lián)CaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta

案例35USC271(c)

271(c)條款“Whenamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”

RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(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。35USC271(c)

271(c)條款“When35USC271(f)

271（f）條款Section271(f)ismeanttopreventpartiesfromavoidinginfringementintheU.S.byshippingapatenteddeviceinsmallercomponentsandthenassemblingthecomponentsoverseas.

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。CreatesacauseofactionforinfringementforsupplyingcomponentsofapatentedinventionforassemblyoutsidetheUS.

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，也會構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。35USC271(f)

271（f）條款SectionOutsideUSA271(f)InfringementCase

美國境外271(f)條款侵權(quán)案例Microsoftput“audiotransferringprogram”indisksandsentthemabroad,allowingthemanufacturestoinstalltheminPCsandsellthePCs.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。AmericandistrictcourtandFederalcircuitcourtjudged:美國地方法院及聯(lián)邦巡回法庭判決：Theprogramispatented“component”此軟件是專利的“部件”AlthoughtheoriginaldiskswerenotinstalledinthePCs,thecopiedprogramisinfringedcomponent.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。AmericanSupremeCourt(2007)Judgment:美國最高法院(2007)判決：35USC271(f)protectsonlytangiblecomponents,excludingprograms35USC271(f)只涵蓋實(shí)體的“部件”，不涵蓋軟件TheoriginaldiskdidnotinstalledinPCs,andthecopiedonesdonotcount原來的光碟沒有裝入電腦，復(fù)制的軟件不算。OutsideUSA271(f)Infringemen35USC271(f)(1)

271(f)(1)條款(f)(1)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesallorasubstantialportionofthecomponentsofapatentedinvention,wheresuchcomponentsareuncombinedinwholeorinpart,insuchmannerastoactivelyinducethecombinationofsuchcomponentsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(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。35USC271(f)(1)

271(f)(1)條款(f35USC271(f)(2)

271(f)(2)條款(f)(2)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesanycomponentofapatentedinventionthatisespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseintheinventionandnot

astaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,wheresuchcomponentisuncombinedinwholeorinpart,knowingthatsuchcomponentissomadeoradaptedandintendingthatsuchcomponentwillbecombinedoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(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。35USC271(f)(2)

271(f)(2)條款(f35USC271(f)

271（f）條款CardiacPacemakersv.St.JudeMedical,2007-1296,-1347(Fed.Cir.2009).St.Judeshippedimplantablecardioverterdefibrillators(ICD’s)overseas.Cardiac,thepatentee,hadamethodclaimtoadministeraparticularshocksequenceusingthedefibrillator.CardiacarguedSt.Judeinfringedunder271(f)whereSt.JudeshippedICD’soverseasthatwerethenusedtoperformthepatentee’smethod.

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。Cardiac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；TheFederalCircuitheldSection271(f)doesnotencompassdevices,suppliedoutsidetheUS,thatmaybeusedtoperformapatentedmethod.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35USC271(f)

271（f）條款Cardiac35USC271(f)

271(f)條款Cardiaccont.Formanypatentholders,wherebothdeviceclaimsandmethodclaimscanbeincludedinissuedpatents,thiscasewillnothavemucheffect.

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，本案對這類專利并沒有太大影響。However,fortechnologieswhereonlymethodclaimsareavailable,thiscasecanlimitexportdamages(enforcementoutsidetheUS).然而，對只存在方法專利，本案可以對出口損害（在美國境外的enforcement）進(jìn)行限制。Trytoincludemanyclaimtypes(e.g.,device,method,andmanufacture)andwriteclaimsfromtheperspectiveofapotentialinfringer.試圖包含更多的權(quán)利要求類型和書面權(quán)利要求35USC271(f)

271(f)條款Cardiac35USC271(g)

271(g)條款(g)WhoeverwithoutauthorityimportsintotheUnitedStatesorofferstosell,sells,oruseswithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichismadebyaprocesspatentedintheUnitedStatesshallbeliableasaninfringer,iftheimportation,offertosell,sale,oruseoftheproductoccursduringthetermofsuchprocesspatent.…Aproductwhichismadebyapatentedprocesswill,forpurposesofthistitle,notbeconsideredtobesomadeafter

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)itismateriallychangedbysubsequentprocesses;or（1）后續(xù)工序發(fā)生重大改變;(2)itbecomesatrivialandnonessentialcomponentofanotherproduct.（2）變成了其他產(chǎn)品瑣碎和不必要的組件35USC271(g)

271(g)條款(g)Who35USC271(g)(“Product-by-processinfringement)

271（g）條款（產(chǎn)品-流程侵權(quán)）UnderSection271(g),itisillegalto“importintotheUnitedStates,”offertosell,sell,“orusewithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichis”producedbyapatentedprocess(unlessproductismateriallychangedorbecomesnon-essentialcomponentofanotherproduct)

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-processinfringementoccursevenifthepatentedprocessisactuallyperformedinaforeigncountry.

適用于在外國執(zhí)行專利程序方法的行為ThepartywhoimportstheproductintotheUSisliable(nottheactualmanufactureoftheproduct,unlesstheyarethesameparty).

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）。

35USC271(g)(“Product-by-pr美國境外271(g)條款侵權(quán)案例

outsideUSA271(g)infringementcasePfizerv.Anhui

輝瑞公司告合肥香料廠侵權(quán)Anhuimanufacturedasweetener(maltol)inChina,thatPfizerallegedinfringedtheirprocesspatent；輝瑞指控合肥香料廠用輝瑞專利的方法制造麥芽酚(maltol)AnhuisoldtoSinochem,whosoldtoF&S,whoimportedtoU.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.SummaryJudgementgrantedforAnhui對于輝瑞的總判決Judgement:Anhuimanufacturedidnotparticipatein“import”,thusdidnotviolet271(g).OnlyF&Sisliable.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&S公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任。美國境外271(g)條款侵權(quán)案例

outsideUSA235U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）StandardHavensv.Gencor–Dec.1991Gencorsoldasphalt-productionplantsthatusedthepatentedmethodforproducingasphalt.Gencor公司使用專利方法生產(chǎn)銷售瀝青。Oneasphalt-productionplantsoldtoforeigncustomer,whodidnotimportproductstoU.S.一個(gè)瀝青產(chǎn)品公司賣產(chǎn)品給一個(gè)外國客戶，該客戶并沒有進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品到美國271(g):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausetherewasnoimportationtoU.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):theCourtunequivocallystatedthatthereisnoimplicationof271(f)bythesaleofnon-patentedapparatustoforeigncustomerforuseoutsideofU.S.271（f）條款：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。35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）SynapticPharm.v.MDSPanlabs–June2002SynapticPharm.patentedaprocessrelatedtobiologicaltesting.MDSaffiliatePanlabsTaiwanconductedthepatentedprocessoutsidetheU.S.MDSimportedtheresultsoftheprocessintotheU.S.fromPanlabsTaiwan.

Synaptic公司有一個(gè)生物測試流程的專利。MDS臺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):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausediagnostic“results”arenot“products”derivedfrompatentedmanufacturingmethods.

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):theCourtexpresslystatedthat271(f)protectsagainsttheexportofcomponentsofpatentedinventions,notagainsttheforeignuseofprocesspatents.

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。35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）EolasTechnologiesv.Microsoft–March2005Microsoftsoftwareinfringedpatentedmethodforautomaticallyinvokingexternalapplicationprovidinginteractionanddisplayofembeddedobjects.GoldenmasterdiskscontainingtheinfringingsoftwarecodewereexportedforreplicationabroadforsaleoutsideoftheU.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):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.271(g)沒有進(jìn)口到美國271(f):theCourtheldthateverycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f)andthatthesoftwarecodeonthegoldenmasterdisksisa“component”ofthepatentedinvention.

35USC271(f)只涵蓋實(shí)體的“部件”，不涵蓋軟件，原來的光碟沒有裝入電腦，復(fù)制的軟件不算。35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）AT&Tv.Microsoft–April2007(USSupremeCourt)MicrosoftsoftwareincludedspeechcodesthatinfringeAT&Tpatentedmethodforprocessingspeechpatterns.GoldenmasterdiskswiththeinfringingsoftwarecodewereexportedforreplicationabroadforsaleoutsideoftheU.S.

微軟的軟件包含了侵犯了ATT公司的專利方法。包含侵權(quán)軟件代碼的光碟出口到每個(gè)以外進(jìn)行復(fù)制銷售。BecauseMicrosoftdoesnotexportfromtheUnitedStatesthecopiesofWindowsinstalledontheforeign-madecomputersinquestion,Microsoftdoesnot“suppl[y]...fromtheUnitedStates”

“components”ofthosecomputers,andthereforeisnotliableunder§271(f)ascurrentlywritten.Untilexpressedasacomputer-readable“copy,”anysoftwaredetachedfromanactivatingmediumremainsuncombinable.Softwareintheabstractisnota“component.”ThepresumptionagainstextraterritorialityandthespecificintentofCongressinenacting§271(f)weighagainstAT&T.35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）UnionCarbidev.ShellOil–Oct.2005UnionCarbidepatentedaprocessforproducingaethyleneoxide.ShellexportedfromtheU.S.catalystsparticularlysuitedforuseinthepatentedprocess.

一種生產(chǎn)環(huán)氧乙烷的專利流程。Shell公司從美國出口催化劑主要是為了使用這個(gè)專利流程。271(g):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.

271（g）不適用因?yàn)闆]有進(jìn)口到美國的行為。271(f):theCourtheldthatthecatalystwasacomponentofthepatentedprocesscitingEolas“everycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f).”271（f）條款：法院引用Eolas案中“271條款保護(hù)發(fā)明的每個(gè)形式的每一部分”原理，判定該催化劑是專利流程的一個(gè)部分。35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）Informaticav.B.O.D.I.–May2007Informaticapatentsinvolvedmethodsofsharingandtransformingdataindatabases.B.O.D.I.willfullyinfringeddomesticallyandbyexportingsoftware.Newtrialwasgrantedfordamagesrecalculation.Informatica公司有一個(gè)分享和傳輸數(shù)據(jù)到數(shù)據(jù)庫的專利方法。BODI公司故意在國內(nèi)侵權(quán)并且出口該軟件。法院為計(jì)算賠償重新開庭審理。InformaticacontendedthatMicrosoftdoesnotdisturbtheFederalCircuit'sholdinginUnionCarbide,contrastingtheapparatusclaiminMicrosoftwiththemethodclaimshereandinUnionCarbide.However,CourtdisagreesConsistentwithUnionCarbideontheissueofdirectlysupplyingcomponentsabroad,Microsoftcontrolsontheissueof“supplying”

masterdisks,notuser-readycopies,abroad.MicrosoftcallsintoquestionthereasoningofEolastotheextentthattheFederalCircuitmayhavebeenreferringtosoftwareintheabstract,ratherthancapturedinamedium.35U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條款的影響IfasubsidiaryexportsanythingcreatedintheU.S.thatinfringesapatentedinventionwhencombined,arguably,thecompanymayhaveliabilityunder271(f).Naturally,thiscangreatlyenhancethecalculateddamages.

如果一個(gè)公司的子公司出口在美國制造的部件組合在一起侵犯了已經(jīng)存在的專利技術(shù)，該公司應(yīng)該承擔(dān)271（f）條款下的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。通常情況下，這會大大的增加損害的賠償額。35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條款的影響PriortoEolas

在Eolas案之前Methodswereexplicitlyexcludedfrom271(f)271（f）條款明確排除方法專利Componentshadtobetangible

部件必須是有形的AfterEolas

Eloas案之后Computersoftware,thoughintangible,canbeconsideredacomponent

軟件即便是無形的，也可以被視為部件Moreover,theCourtheldthatmethodswerenotexcludedfrom271(f)

法院判定271（f）不可以排除方法專利35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條款的影響SupremeCourtaddressed271(f)inMicrosoft:

最高法院在微軟案中對271（f）的意見acopyofcomputersoftware,notthesoftwareintheabstract,qualifiesasa“component”within271(f).軟件拷貝是271（f）定義下的“部件”271(f)isnotapplicablewherecomputersoftwareisfirstsentfromtheU.S.toaforeigncomputermanufactureronamasterdisk,orbyelectronictransmission,andthencopiedbytheforeignrecipientforinstallationoncomputersmadeandsoldabroad,sincethecopies,as“components”installedontheforeignmadecomputers,werenotsuppliedfromtheU.S.271（f）條款不適用軟件最初以光盤的形式從美國被送到國外電腦生產(chǎn)商或通過電子傳輸給國外接收方，將其復(fù)制和安裝在電腦上在境外銷售。因?yàn)檫@些拷貝，作為“部件”被組裝在外國生產(chǎn)的電腦上，這種情況不屬于從美國供應(yīng)。

35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條款的影響35U.S.C.§271afterMicrosoft在微軟案件后的271條款TheSupremeCourtclearlylimitedwhatqualifiesasa“component”within271(f).

最高法院明確限定什么是271（f）條款下的“組件”However,therewasacleardistinctionwasmadebetweenhuman-readable“sourcecode”andcomputer-readable“objectcode”asacombinablecomponent.

然而，人類可讀的“源編碼”和機(jī)器可讀的“目標(biāo)代碼”有明顯的區(qū)別，當(dāng)他們作為組合的部件。CourtsfollowingMicrosofthavenarrowedthelimitations法院根據(jù)微軟案作出下一的解釋限定Thelimitationson271(f)arenotapplicabletocontributoryinfringementunder271(c).

271（f）不適用于271（c）的共同貢獻(xiàn)侵權(quán)。Thelimitationson271(f)withrespecttoapparatusclaimsmaynotbeapplicabletomethodclaims.

271（f）條款對機(jī)構(gòu)權(quán)利要求的限定不適用于方法權(quán)利要求。35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271條StepsforAvoidanceofPatentInfringementintheUnitedStates

避免在美國的專利侵權(quán)步驟Coherentstrategyforavoidanceofinfringementhasmultipleparts避免侵權(quán)的相關(guān)策略有多個(gè)部分構(gòu)成Clearancestudies結(jié)清研究Searches檢索Freedomtooperateopinions自由使用權(quán)意見IssuesofprivilegeandcommunicationwithU.S.Attorneys特權(quán)問題并與美國的專利律師溝通Internalprocedures:triage內(nèi)部程序：分類Invalidityandnon-infringementopinions無效和不侵權(quán)的意見Procedurestoavoidwillfulinfringement避免故意侵權(quán)的程序UnderstandingU.S.negotiatingstrategy了解美國談判的策略SpecialissueswithNPEsandtheEasternDistrictofTexas與NPEs和德州東部地區(qū)相關(guān)的特別問題LitigationPreparedness訴訟準(zhǔn)備StepsforAvoidanceofPatentAModelClearanceStudy

侵權(quán)分析模型Objectivesofaclearancestudy侵權(quán)分析的目的Understandthepatentlandscape了解專利的前景Whoaretheprincipalstakeholders誰是主要的持有人Avoidinfringement避免侵權(quán)Identifyproblemareasearly提早識別有問題的地方Timefordesign-around周邊設(shè)計(jì)的時(shí)間Timeforlicensenegotiations許可協(xié)議的時(shí)間Avoidlargeinvestmentinproductthatcannotbesold避免對不能出售的產(chǎn)品大規(guī)模投資Avoidwillfulinfringement避免故意侵權(quán)Infringementmayresultinpayingreasonableroyaltyorlostprofits侵權(quán)可能會導(dǎo)致支付合理的專利許可費(fèi)和失去利潤Willfulinfringementmaybethreetimesthisamount故意侵權(quán)可能會導(dǎo)致三倍賠償AModelClearanceStudy

侵權(quán)分析模型AModelClearanceStudy

Step1:DefinetheTeam步驟一：明確團(tuán)隊(duì)IPissuesareoftenlefttoonlytheIPteam知識產(chǎn)權(quán)問題通常只能留給知識產(chǎn)權(quán)團(tuán)隊(duì)Broaderinvolvementisimportant廣泛的參與是很重要的Typicalteamprofile典型團(tuán)隊(duì)的概況In-houselawyerorIPexpert機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)部律師或者知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專家Teamleader,

responsibleforcarryingoutstrategy團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行策略Managementrepresentative管理代表人Provideobjectives提供目標(biāo)Liaisontocompanyexecutives與公司行政部門溝通Salesormarketingperson營銷人員Provideinformationonthemarketandcompetitors提供市場和競爭者信息Engineer工程師Providetechnicalinformationonproposedproduct提供產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)信息Conducttechnicalanalysisofpatents進(jìn)行專利技術(shù)分析AModelClearanceStudy

Step1AModelClearanceStudy

Step2:IdentifytheIssues步驟二：明確問題Identifynatureofproposedproduct識別產(chǎn)品的性質(zhì)Specifictechnicalissues特別的技術(shù)問題Doesitusemultipletechnologies?它是否使用了多種技術(shù)？Whi