企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理.ppt

企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理DefenseandStrategyofIntellectualPropertyInfringement,Overview目录,IntroductiontoDirect,Indirect,WillfulInfringement,USC271aswellassomerelatedcases直接侵权，间接侵权，故意侵权，271条款引诱侵权及相关案例StepsforavoidanceofpatentInfringementintheUnitedStates,FTOaswellassomerelatedcases防止侵权策略、FTO及相关案例,HiddenTraps“走出去”的“尴尬”,BasicAttributeofPatentRight:RegionalFeature专利的基本属性：地域性,Patentisarightgrantedbythegovernment,anditsonlyvalidintheauthorizedcountries.专利是政府授予的权利，只在授权国境内有效。Theinfringementoccurswhentheproductappearsintheauthorizedcountries.产品专利必须要产品在授权国内出现才侵权。Thepatentcanonlybeinfringedinthecountrieswhereitsauthorized.同样地，方法专利只会在被授权的国家境内实施该专利的行为所侵害。,AmericaPatentInfringement美国专利侵权,DirectInfringement(Client)-35USC271(a)直接侵权(当事人)-271(a)条款IndirectInfringement(Accomplice)间接侵权(共犯)Induceinfringement35USC271(b)引诱侵权271(b)条款Contributoryinfringement35USC271(c)共同(参与)侵权271(c)条款ThebehaviorsaboveareviewedasinfringementsonlyinUSA,thedirectinfringementsoutsideUSAarestatedasfollows:以上行为在美国国内才侵权，下面是美国境外的间接侵权行为:Providecomponentstoassembleabroad35USC271(f)(1)提供部件到国外组合271(f)(1)条款ImportAmericanpatentedmethodstoproduceproductsabroad35USC271(g)进口美国专利方法在国外制造的产品-271(g)条款Providepatentedcomponentsforspecificuse35USC271(f)(2)提供专利特用的零件271(f)(2)条款,PatentInfringementunderUSLaw美国法中的专利侵权,IntheU.S.,apatentprovidesitsproprietorwiththerighttoexcludeothersfromutilizingtheinventionclaimedinthepatent.在美国，专利给予专利权人排他性的特权，对其拥有的技术具有独占使用权。Shouldapersonutilizethatinvention,withoutpermissionofthepatentproprietor,theyinfringethatpatent.在无专利权人允许的情况下使用该发明，就是专利侵权。See35U.S.CodeSection271参见见美国专利法271条,ExtraterratorialAspectsofUSLaw治外法权,ThegeneralruleisthatU.S.PatentsonlycoveractivitiesintheU.S.美国专利法通常只适用于在美国境内的行为However,incertaincircumstances,bothactivitiesoriginatingoutsideoftheU.S.ThetradewasprocessedinCanada.Isitadirectinfringement?加拿大A公司采购中国B公司的产品，卖给美国C公司；交货是在加拿大直接侵权吗?Yes.有。(LightCubes,LLCv.NorthernLightProducts,Inc.,523F.3d1353(Fed.Cir.2008)TaiwanesecorporationAproducedelectronicproductsinShenzhen,andthetradewasprocessedinChina.Beforethetrade,AsentsomesamplestoUSAandgotUL.Isitadirectinfringement?台湾A公司在深圳制造电子产品卖给公司，在中国交货，交货前寄了几个样品到美国取得UL认证直接侵权吗？Yes有。(Fellowesv.MichilinProsperityCo.,491F.Supp.2d571,583(E.D.Va.2007).),IndirectInfringement间接侵权,ThePatentActdoesnotdirectlydistinguish“direct”and“indirect”infringement.美国专利法并没有直接区分“直接侵权”与“间接侵权”271(b)and(c)aretypicallygroupedtogetheras“indirect”waysofinfringingapatent:271（b）和（c）条款合并规定了“间接的”专利侵权方式271(b)createsatypeofinfringementdescribedas“activeinducementofinfringement.”271（b）的“积极引诱”侵权271(c)createsliabilityforthosewhohavecontributedtotheinfringementofapatent.271c对侵权行为提供帮助者的法律责任Bothtypesofindirectinfringementcanonlyoccurwhentherehasactuallybeenadirectinfringementofthepatent.上述2种间接侵权只发生在实际存在一个直接侵权的情况下,35USC271(b),(c)271（b）和（c）条款,(b)Whoeveractivelyinducesinfringementofapatentshallbeliableasaninfringer（b）条款中，积极引诱侵权者应被视为侵权方(c)WhoeverofferstosellorsellswithintheUnitedStatesorimportsintotheUnitedStatesacomponentofapatentedmachine,manufacture,combination,orcomposition,oramaterialorapparatusforuseinpracticingapatentedprocess,constitutingamaterialpartoftheinvention,knowingthesametobeespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseinaninfringementofsuchpatent,andnotastaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnon-infringinguse,shallbeliableasacontributoryinfringer.（c）条款针对专利产品组件的生产、销售、组装，该部件是发明的一部分且当事人明知该部件是特别为专利产品生产制造的，且没有其他非专利侵权的商业用途，该当事人是辅助（贡献）侵权。,35USC271(b)(Inducement)271（b）条款（引诱侵权）,Section271(b)coverssituationswhereapartyactivelyinducestheinfringementofapatentbyencouraging,aiding,orotherwisecausinganotherpersonorentitytoinfringeapatent.271（b）条款规定，一方积极主动引诱侵权，通过鼓励、协助、或其他手段促成第三方完成的侵权行为。Thepotentialinducermustactuallybeawareofthepatentandintendfortheiractionstoresultinathirdpartyinfringingthatpatent.潜在的引诱者必须意识到专利的存在且希望其引诱行为会导致第三方做出侵权行为。,35USC271(b)SupremeCourtWeighsIn271(b)条款-最高法院审理的领域,Global-TechAppliancesInc.v.SEBS.A.,No.10-6,May31,2011Global-Tech电器股份有限公司与SEB集团的案例，第10-6号案例，2011年五月31日Global-TechAppliancesInc.andPentalphaEnterprises,Ltd.(collectively“Pentalpha”),aHongKongappliancemaker,soldadeep-fryerto3rdpartiesthatwasanallegedcopyofonepatentedbySEB.香港华利美公司Pentalpha将深度油炸锅的专利卖给第三方，而该技术被起诉为SEB集团的专利仿制品,35USC271(b)SupremeCourtWeighsIn271(b)条款-最高法院审理的领域,FactsshowedthatPentalphacopiedSEBsdesignandknewthatthedesignwaspatented事实证明，香港华利美公司Pentalpha仿制了SEB电子油炸锅，并且知道这是专利产品。PentalphacontactedaU.S.patentattorneyandobtainedafreedomtouseopinion.Pentalpha与美国专利局联系过并获得了不侵权意见书。Theynevertoldtheattorneyofthepatent,orthatthedesignwasacopy.Pentalpha没告诉律师他们制造的是仿制品；Pentalphastartedsellingcopiedfrierstovariousdistributors,whosoldthemintheU.S.Pentalpha公司销售仿制品给分销商，分销商把产品卖到美国。SEBsuedPentalphaunder271(b)SEB基于271（b）条款告PentalphaWinatthedistrictcourt,andsubsequentlyappeal在地方法院胜诉然后进一步上诉,FederalCircuitDecision联邦巡回法院判决,Holding:Inducedinfringementunder35USC271(b)requires依据：271（b）条款规定下的引诱侵权要求knowledgethattheinducedactsconstitutepatentinfringement;and知道有专利存在并且做出引诱侵权的行为deliberateindifference(orrecklessness)toaknownriskthatapatentexistsdoesnotsatisfytheknowledgerequiredbysection271(b)故意忽视有专利存在的可能性Arecklessdefendantisonewhomerelyknowsofasubstantialandunjustifiedriskofwrongdoing.被告明知其行为很可能是违规的。,SupremeCourtDecision最高法院判决,WillfulblindnessisgroundedinU.S.criminallaw“故意视而不见”是美国刑法中的最重罪责Defendantmaybefoundliableifafindingof“deliberateshieldingthemselvesfromclearevidence”被告如果被发现是“故意忽视明显证据”，那么应追究其法律责任Despitethehigherstandard,SupremeCourtaffirmstheFederalCircuitWhy?尽管是一个很高的标准，最高法院肯定了联邦巡回法院的判决为什么？Failuretodisclosethatthefrierwasacopytothepatentattorneywasstrongevidencethattheactionswereintentional没有向专利代理人公开煎锅是仿制品的行为是证明其故意行为的强有力证据；,35USC271(c)(Contributory)271（c）条款辅助（贡献）侵权,“Contributoryinfringement”istriggeredwhenasellerprovidesapartorcomponentthat,whilenotitselfinfringingofanypatent,hasaparticularuseofsomeothermachineorcompositionthatiscoveredbyapatent.“辅助(贡献)侵权”是当卖方提供部件，其部件本身不构成侵权，但部件有专有用途，用来组建成专利保护的产品。However,ifthereareothervalidusesfortheproduct,oritisa“staplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,”thesellerhaslikelynotcontributedtothethirdpartysinfringement.然而，如果该部件有其他有效的用途或存在其他显而易见的非侵权的商业替代用途，卖方的行为不构成侵权。,35USC271(c)271（c）条款,Contributoryinfringementcanbethoughtofasatypeofinducement,inwhichtheintenttocausedirectinfringementcanbeinferredfromthefactthattheproductofferedforsaleissuitableonlyforpatentinfringement.辅助（贡献）侵权可以被认定为引诱侵权行为的一类。其存在的故意侵权意图可以通过该产品事实上只适用于侵权产品这一事实进行证明。“Whenamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(Fed.Cir.2008).法院判定“部件只能用于侵权产品，其侵权意图是显而易见的”,JointInfringement共同侵权,Jointinfringementrequiresanagencyrelationshiporcontractualobligationbetweenthejointlyinfringingparties.共同侵权需要存在于共同侵权人中间的一个代理关系或合同关系。AkamaiTechnologiesv.LimelightNetworks(Fed.Cir.,Aug.31,2012)(enbanc)AkamaiassertedthatLimelightdirectlyinfringedapatentdirectedtoamethodofdeliveringcontentovertheweb.Thepatentclaimseachrequiredastepof“tagging”objectsonawebpage.TherewasnodisputethatLimelightdidnottagobjects.However,Limelightsuserdocumentationincludedinstructionsfortagging,anditscustomerswouldtypicallyperformthetaggingstep.争议专利是通过网络标记的一种方法。标记是专利实施的必须步骤。Enbanccourtfoundinfringement,currentlyonappealtoSupremeCourt,CaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta案例研究：Ricoh与Quanta,Ricohhasclaimstowritingandrecordingdisksonanopticaldrive.Ricoh公司有关于光盘读写的专利Quantamanufactures,butsellstothirdpartieswhoincorporateintocomputersQ公司生产，销售给第三方，其产品装入电脑中FederalCircuitfindsthatQuanta联邦巡回法院判决Shouldnotbepermittedtoescapeliability,justbecausetheendproducthassubstantialnon-infringingusesQ公司仍然要承担侵权责任，即便他提出其最终产品是不侵权Itsthecomponentthatmatters虽然是组件，但是仍然有关联,35USC271(c)271(c)条款,“Whenamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(Fed.Cir.2008).271（c）条款中判定，产品的组件只是为了侵权，就可以推定其侵权的意图是明确的。,35USC271(f)271（f）条款,Section271(f)ismeanttopreventpartiesfromavoidinginfringementintheU.S.byshippingapatenteddeviceinsmallercomponentsandthenassemblingthecomponentsoverseas.271(f)条款是为防止将美国专利产品的部件运到海外组装，从而规避侵权责任。CreatesacauseofactionforinfringementforsupplyingcomponentsofapatentedinventionforassemblyoutsidetheUS.法律创造了这类侵权可诉的行为，即把未组装的部件出口到美国境外，在美国境外组装成产品，也会构成侵权。,OutsideUSA271(f)InfringementCase美国境外271(f)条款侵权案例,Microsoftput“audiotransferringprogram”indisksandsentthemabroad,allowingthemanufacturestoinstalltheminPCsandsellthePCs.微软把含有“声音转码程序”的软件放在光盘送到国外让制造商把该软件装到电脑里去贩卖。AmericandistrictcourtandFederalcircuitcourtjudged:美国地方法院及联邦巡回法庭判决：Theprogramispatented“component”此软件是专利的“部件”AlthoughtheoriginaldiskswerenotinstalledinthePCs,thecopiedprogramisinfringedcomponent.虽然原来的光碟没有装入电脑，复制的软件是侵权的部件。AmericanSupremeCourt(2007)Judgment:美国最高法院(2007)判决：35USC271(f)protectsonlytangiblecomponents,excludingprograms35USC271(f)只涵盖实体的“部件”，不涵盖软件TheoriginaldiskdidnotinstalledinPCs,andthecopiedonesdonotcount原来的光碟没有装入电脑，复制的软件不算。,35USC271(f)(1)271(f)(1)条款,(f)(1)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesallorasubstantialportionofthecomponentsofapatentedinvention,wheresuchcomponentsareuncombinedinwholeorinpart,insuchmannerastoactivelyinducethecombinationofsuchcomponentsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(f)(1)任何人未经许可，在美国或由美国提供或使人提供”受专利保护的发明的未被组合的全部或主要组件”，且积极促使该组件在美国境外进行组合；若这组合行为在美国境内是属侵犯专利权，则由美国提供或使人提供该组件亦属于专利侵权行为。,35USC271(f)(2)271(f)(2)条款,(f)(2)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesanycomponentofapatentedinventionthatisespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseintheinventionandnotastaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,wheresuchcomponentisuncombinedinwholeorinpart,knowingthatsuchcomponentissomadeoradaptedandintendingthatsuchcomponentwillbecombinedoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(f)(2)任何人未经许可，在美国或从美国提供或促使提供专门为实施一项专利发明所用之组件，且该组件不是普通物品或具有实质非侵权用途之商品，尽管该组件尚未部分地或整体地组装起来，但该行为人明知该组件乃专门用于实施专利发明，且希望其在美国境外被组装起来，假如这种组装在美国境内将侵犯专利权，则行为人应承担侵权责任。,35USC271(f)271（f）条款,CardiacPacemakersv.St.JudeMedical,2007-1296,-1347(Fed.Cir.2009).St.Judeshippedimplantablecardioverterdefibrillators(ICDs)overseas.Cardiac,thepatentee,hadamethodclaimtoadministeraparticularshocksequenceusingthedefibrillator.CardiacarguedSt.Judeinfringedunder271(f)whereSt.JudeshippedICDsoverseasthatwerethenusedtoperformthepatenteesmethod.St.Jude将心脏除颤器运往国外.Cardiac作为专利权人，拥有一个除颤器中应用的心脏刺激方法权利要求。Cardiac辩称St.Jude将心脏除颤器运往国外侵犯了271（f）条款下心脏刺激方法的权利要求；TheFederalCircuitheldSection271(f)doesnotencompassdevices,suppliedoutsidetheUS,thatmaybeusedtoperformapatentedmethod.联邦巡回法院判定271（f）条款并不包含在美国境外销售的使用专利方法的设备,35USC271(f)271(f)条款,Cardiaccont.Formanypatentholders,wherebothdeviceclaimsandmethodclaimscanbeincludedinissuedpatents,thiscasewillnothavemucheffect.许多专利持有者，当专利包含设备权利要求与方法的权利要求，本案对这类专利并没有太大影响。However,fortechnologieswhereonlymethodclaimsareavailable,thiscasecanlimitexportdamages(enforcementoutsidetheUS).然而，对只存在方法专利，本案可以对出口损害（在美国境外的enforcement）进行限制。Trytoincludemanyclaimtypes(e.g.,device,method,andmanufacture)andwriteclaimsfromtheperspectiveofapotentialinfringer.试图包含更多的权利要求类型和书面权利要求,35USC271(g)271(g)条款,(g)WhoeverwithoutauthorityimportsintotheUnitedStatesorofferstosell,sells,oruseswithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichismadebyaprocesspatentedintheUnitedStatesshallbeliableasaninfringer,iftheimportation,offertosell,sale,oruseoftheproductoccursduringthetermofsuchprocesspatent.Aproductwhichismadebyapatentedprocesswill,forpurposesofthistitle,notbeconsideredtobesomadeafter凡未经授权而使用已获美国工艺专利生产的产品，如果在这种工艺专利期内将其进口到美国或出售，销售，或在美国境内使用将承担侵权责任。.这种根据专利工艺生产的产品通过下面的步骤可以规避侵权：(1)itismateriallychangedbysubsequentprocesses;or（1）后续工序发生重大改变;(2)itbecomesatrivialandnonessentialcomponentofanotherproduct.（2）变成了其他产品琐碎和不必要的组件,35USC271(g)(“Product-by-processinfringement)271（g）条款（产品-流程侵权）,UnderSection271(g),itisillegalto“importintotheUnitedStates,”offertosell,sell,“orusewithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichis”producedbyapatentedprocess(unlessproductismateriallychangedorbecomesnon-essentialcomponentofanotherproduct)271（g）规定，“进口到美国销售或在美国境内使用”是违法行为。Patent-by-processinfringementoccursevenifthepatentedprocessisactuallyperformedinaforeigncountry.适用于在外国执行专利程序方法的行为ThepartywhoimportstheproductintotheUSisliable(nottheactualmanufactureoftheproduct,unlesstheyarethesameparty).进口产品到美国的一方负有责任（而不是实际制造方，除非他们是同一方）。,美国境外271(g)条款侵权案例outsideUSA271(g)infringementcase,Pfizerv.Anhui辉瑞公司告合肥香料厂侵权Anhuimanufacturedasweetener(maltol)inChina,thatPfizerallegedinfringedtheirprocesspatent；辉瑞指控合肥香料厂用辉瑞专利的方法制造麦芽酚(maltol)AnhuisoldtoSinochem,whosoldtoFnofurtheraction没有更进一步的活动Medium中级Solicittechnicalinput招揽技术输入Submittoteammanagementforreview向团队管理者提交审查High高级ObtainopinionfromU.S.attorney得到美国律师的法律意见书,AModelClearanceStudyStep6:UsetheSearch步骤六：使用检索结果,Reviewresultsofanyopinions审查所有意见Reportresultsofstudytomanagement向管理者报告研究结果Considerdesignchangestostrengthenanynon-infringementpositions考虑外观设计的改变以补强任何没有侵权的立场Makereasonableandinformedbusinessdecisions作出合理和有根据的商业决定Avoidnegativeconclusionsandnegativeanalysis避免消极的结论和消极的分析Atleastnotinwriting!至少不体现在文书中,GoodBusinessPractices良好商业惯例,Establishingadefinedtriageprocess:建立明确的分类程序Shouldsupportfindingofnon-recklessbehaviorevenifnoopinionobtained应该支持不是由轻率行为得到的调查结果，即使没有获得意见书Permitsefficientuseofresources允许资源的有效利用Requestspecifics(e.g.,claimchartsandaccusedproducts)fromthepatenteeifanoticeletterisreceived如果收到通知信函，要求从专利权者得到详情（例如，专利解释图表和被指控的产品）Requestopinionif所请求意见是否Usefultomakeinformedbusinessdecision有利于作出有根据的商业决定Closecase终止案件answernotclear答案不清楚Invalidity/unenforceabilitypositiononly只有无效/无法执行的立场,ReliabilityofOpinions意见书的可靠性,Nopersestandardexistsfordeterminingadequacyofopinion不存在自身标准来确定意见书的充分性Jurymustlookattotalityofcircumstances;陪审团必须审视整体情况；maybeinfluencedbyotheracts可能受其他条例的影响Possibletostatesomebasicminimumrequirementsforreliability可能会为可靠性规定一些基本的最低要求Themorethorough,thebetter考虑越周全越好Reliabilityofopinioncomesfromthedocumentitself,notthereputationoftheauthor意见书的可靠性归结于文献本身，而不是作者的名气,CaseStudy:HayesModem案例：鹤氏,Companyreceivednoticeofpatent公司收到了专利权通知HadmeetingwithU.S.attorneywhereoralopinionofnon-infringementandinvaliditywasgiven与美国的专利律师会面，得到不侵权和专利无效的口头意见RequestedandreceivedtimelywrittenopinionfromU.S.attorney请求并及时收到来自美国专利律师的意见书Opinioncontainedclearanddefiniteconclusionsofnoinfringementandinvalidity,however:意见书包含了清楚、明确的不侵权和专利无效的结论，Superficialtreatmentofclaimscope没有深入对待专利解释范围Summarytreatmentofpriorart草率的对待在先技术,HayesModem(contd)鹤氏（接上页）,Insubsequentlitigation,Courtfoundinfringement;damagesof$1millionwereawarded在随后的诉讼中，法庭认定侵权；被判处损害赔偿一百万美元Juryfoundinfringementwaswillful陪审团认为侵权是故意的Increaseddamagesto$2million损害赔偿增加到两百万美元,HayesModem(contd)鹤氏（接上页）,Juryfoundthewrittenopinionwasunreliable陪审团认为意见书是不可靠的Treatedpatentclaimssuperficially处理专利解释不深入Failedtospecifyastandardforoneofordinaryskillintheart未能详述技术中一个普通技能的标准Failedtoconsidersecondaryconsiderationsindeterminingobviousness未考虑在决定中应当考虑的显而易见的二次因素Mischaracterizedpriorart错误的描述在先技术的特征Failedtoperformproperanalysisofsupportinthespecification未在说明书中进行适当的支持性分析Juryalsofoundtheoralopinionunreliable陪审团还认为口头意见是不可靠的Notbasedonallinformation没有基于所有信息Didnotprovideunderlyingdocumentstoattendeesofmeeting没有向会议的出席者提供基础文献,HayesModem(contd)鹤氏（接上页）,Wordstoliveby:换言之：Willfulnessisjudgedbythetotalityofthecircumstances被判为主观故意是基于整体的因素Themereexistenceofawrittenopinionisnotenough;theopinionmustbereliable.仅仅有一份法律意见书是不充分的；意见必须是可靠的。Oralopinionswillbegivenlittleweight.口头意见的分量是很小的,WillfulnessinGeneral故意侵权概要,ToolusedbyU.S.Courtstopunishapartywhodoesnotexhibitproperrespectforpatentownedbyanother.美国法庭惩罚对专利持有者表现出不尊重的当事人所使用的工具是：Encouragesgoodbehavior鼓励良好行为Makesintentionalinfringementmoreexpensivethantakinglicense故意侵权比获得许可更昂贵Willfulinfringementisa“questionoffact”故意侵权是一个事实问题Decidedbythejury由陪审团决定Actualdamagesmaybeincreaseduptothreetimes实际的损害赔偿可能会提高到三倍Actualdamages“nolessthanareasonableroyalty”实际损害赔偿“不少于一个合理的专利许可费”,OldWillfulnessStandard旧的故意侵权标准,Onceonnoticeofpatent,haddutytoexercise“duecare”toavoidinfringementevenwhennoaccusationofinfringementwasmade.一旦接收到专利权通知，就有义务行使“注意义务”来避免侵权，即使没有受到侵权的指控Atcourt在法庭上Adverseinferenceifopinionnotobtained假如没有获得意见书会做出不利推论Adverseinferenceifopinionnotproduced假如没有出示意见书会做不利推论Adviceofin-housecounselnotreliableinmostcases机构内部法律顾问的建议在大多数案例中是不可靠的Createdsignificantburden/riskforpotentialinfringerevenwhentryingtoactwithduecare.创建对潜在侵权者繁重的负担/风险，即使是试图在注意义务下进行“Patenttrolls”andotherprospectivelicensorsusedtoadvantage有益于应对“专利诱饵”和其他潜在的许可人Nodeclaratoryjudgmentstandinginabsenceofactualaccusationofinfringement不公开判决来替代缺乏实质性侵权的指控,Seagate:aNewWillfulnessStandard新的判断故意的标准(August,2007),FederalCircuitenbancdecision联邦巡回法官决议Willfulnessinotherareasofcivillawmeans“recklessdisregard”主观故意在民法的其它领域表示“轻率不理会”Duecarestandardislower,morelikenegligence注意义务标准更低，更像是疏忽大意Standardinpatentcaseswillbechangedtomatchthatinotherareas在专利案件中的标准将会被转换成与其它领域相匹配的标准。“Toestablishwillfulinfringement,apatenteemustshowbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheinfringeracteddespiteanobjectivelyhighlikelihoodthatitsactionsconstitutedinfringementofavalidpatent.”为了证明故意侵权，专利权人必须拿出清楚和确凿的证据来证明：尽管客观上其行为有很高的可能性会构成有效专利的侵害，侵权者还是作了侵权行为,CourtsExplanationofNewStandard法院对新标准的解释,“Stateofmindofaccusedinfringerisnotrelevanttothisobjectiveinquiry.”被指控的侵权人其主观状态不在调查的目标范围内。“Thepatenteemustalsodemonstratethatthisobjectively-definedriskwaseitherknownorsoobviousthatitshouldhavebeenknowntotheaccusedinfringer.”专利权人必须证明这个客观确定的风险被控侵权者已知悉，或是明显其应当知悉Notcompletelyobjective非完全客观的“reasonablenessoftheactionstakenintheparticularcircumstances”arenecessaryforapplyingthestandards.“特别条件下实施行为的合理性”作为标准的应用是必须的。“Leaveittofuturecasestofurtherdeveloptheapplicationofthisstandard.”为了进一步发展这项标准的适用将其留在以后的案件来处理Summarypoint:Riskofwillfulnessfindinglowsolongasreasonablebusinesspracticesarefollowed总结要点：只要合理地进行商业活动被陪审团裁决为主观故意的风险就低。,ShiftofBalanceofPowerAwayFromPatentHolder权利均衡的转变,Courtsbegantrendoflesseningburdenonpotentialinfringer;evenbalanceofpower美国法院开始减轻对可能侵权者的负担Useofin-housecounselmayaffectthestrengthofthedefense,butitdoesnotaffectthelegalnatureoftheadvice公司内部律师的意见一样有效只是说服力可能较差Noadverseinferenceshall