企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理课件

企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理

DefenseandStrategyofIntellectualPropertyInfringement企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理

DefenseandStOverview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Overview目录HiddenTraps“走出去”的“尴尬”HiddenTraps“走出去”的“尴尬”BasicAttributeofPatentRight:RegionalFeature

专利的基本属性：地域性Patentisarightgrantedbythegovernment,andit’sonlyvalidintheauthorizedcountries.

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。Thepatentcanonlybeinfringedinthecountrieswhereit’sauthorized.

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。BasicAttributeofPatentRighAmericaPatentInfringement

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)Induceinfringement–35USC271(b)

引诱侵权–271(b)条款Contributoryinfringement–35USC271(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:Providecomponentstoassembleabroad–35USC271(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Providepatentedcomponentsforspecificuse–35USC271(f)(2)提供专利特用的零件–271(f)(2)条款AmericaPatentInfringement

美国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PatentInfringementunderUSLExtraterratorialAspectsofUSLaw

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.&salesoccurringoutsideoftheU.S.maybeimplicatedbyU.S.law

然而在特定情况下，从美国境外始发的行为和在美国境外的销售也受美国法管辖ExtraterratorialAspectsofUSDirectInfringement

直接侵权Apersondirectlyinfringesapatentbymaking,using,selling,offeringtosell,orimportingintotheUSanypatentedinvention,withoutauthority,duringthetermofthepatent–35USC271(a)

美国专利法271(a)条款规定：未经专利权人许可，制造、使用、销售、授权他人销售或进口入美国的行为，是直接侵权行为。DirectInfringement

直接侵权Apers35USC271(a)

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

除法律另外规定外，未经专利权人允许，制造、使用、销售、授权他人销售或进口专利产品到美国的行为，是本条款中规定的侵权行为。35USC271(a)

271（a）条款(a)ExceDirectInfringement(cases)

直接侵权（案例）JapanesecorporationAsoldproductstoAsiancorporationB.BrequiredAtotaptheboxesoftheproductswiththeaddressofthesubsidiarycorporationofAmericancorporationBtomakeitconvenientforBtosendthemtoUSA→Isitaninfringement?日本A公司卖产品给一个亚洲B公司，B公司要求A公司把产品箱子贴上美国B公司的子公司的地址方便B公司直接寄到美国直接侵权吗？

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

420F.3d1369(Fed.Cir.2005)CanadiancorporationAboughttheproductsofChinesecorporationB,andsoldthemtoAmericancorporationC;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).)DirectInfringement(cases)

直接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IndirectInfringement

间接侵权The35USC271(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),(c)

271（b）和（c）条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)(Inducement)

27135USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn

271(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)–SupremeCourt35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn

271(b)条款-最高法院审理的领域FactsshowedthatPentalphacopiedSEB’sdesignandknewthatthedesignwaspatented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35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtFederalCircuitDecision

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。

FederalCircuitDecision

联邦巡回法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,SupremeCourtaffirmstheFederalCircuit—Why?

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；SupremeCourtDecision

最高法院判决W35USC271(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,”thesellerhaslikelynotcontributedtothethirdparty’sinfringement.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)(Contributory)

235USC271(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”35USC271(c)

271（c）条款ContribuJointInfringement

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,Limelight’suserdocumentationincludedinstructionsfortagging,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,currentlyonappealtoSupremeCourtJointInfringement

共同侵权JointiCaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta

案例研究：

Ricoh与QuantaRicohhasclaimstowritingandrecordingdisksonanopticaldrive.

Ricoh公司有关于光盘读写的专利Quantamanufactures,butsellstothirdpartieswhoincorporateintocomputers

Q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-infringinguses

Q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It’sthecomponentthatmatters虽然是组件，但是仍然有关联CaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta

案例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(c)

271(c)条款“When35USC271(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。35USC271(f)

271（f）条款SectionOutsideUSA271(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。OutsideUSA271(f)Infringemen35USC271(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)(1)

271(f)(1)条款(f35USC271(f)(2)

271(f)(2)条款(f)(2)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesanycomponentofapatentedinventionthatisespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseintheinventionandnot

astaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,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)(2)

271(f)(2)条款(f35USC271(f)

271（f）条款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Cardiac35USC271(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(f)

271(f)条款Cardiac35USC271(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)

271(g)条款(g)Who35USC271(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）。

35USC271(g)(“Product-by-pr美国境外271(g)条款侵权案例

outsideUSA271(g)infringementcasePfizerv.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,whosoldtoF&S,whoimportedtoU.S.合肥香料厂将麦芽酚卖给中化集团，中化集团再将麦芽酚卖给美国F&S公司，后者将麦芽酚进口到美国.SummaryJudgementgrantedforAnhui对于辉瑞的总判决Judgement:Anhuimanufacturedidnotparticipatein“import”,thusdidnotviolet271(g).OnlyF&Sisliable.法院裁定：合肥香料厂不参与“进口”所以没有违反271(g)条款，只有F&S公司承担责任。美国境外271(g)条款侵权案例

outsideUSA235U.S.C.§271–CaseLaw

案例法（判例）StandardHavensv.Gencor–Dec.1991Gencorsoldasphalt-productionplantsthatusedthepatentedmethodforproducingasphalt.Gencor公司使用专利方法生产销售沥青。Oneasphalt-productionplantsoldtoforeigncustomer,whodidnotimportproductstoU.S.一个沥青产品公司卖产品给一个外国客户，该客户并没有进口产品到美国271(g):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausetherewasnoimportationtoU.S.

271（g）条款：法院认定无侵权，因为没有进口到美国的行为。271(f):theCourtunequivocallystatedthatthereisnoimplicationof271(f)bythesaleofnon-patentedapparatustoforeigncustomerforuseoutsideofU.S.271（f）条款：法院判定不适用271f条款中关于销售非专利产品给在美国以外的外国客户。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公司有一个生物测试流程的专利。MDS台湾子公司在美国境外使用该专利流程。MDS公司进口该流程的结果到美国。271(g):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausediagnostic“results”arenot“products”derivedfrompatentedmanufacturingmethods.

271（g）条款：法院认定没有侵权，因为“结果”不是从专利方法生产的“产品”。271(f):theCourtexpresslystatedthat271(f)protectsagainsttheexportofcomponentsofpatentedinventions,notagainsttheforeignuseofprocesspatents.

法院明确表示271（f）条款保护进口的发明产品的组件。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。271(g):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.271(g)没有进口到美国271(f):theCourtheldthateverycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f)andthatthesoftwarecodeonthegoldenmasterdisksisa“component”ofthepatentedinvention.

35USC271(f)只涵盖实体的“部件”，不涵盖软件，原来的光碟没有装入电脑，复制的软件不算。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.

微软的软件包含了侵犯了ATT公司的专利方法。包含侵权软件代码的光碟出口到每个以外进行复制销售。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.

一种生产环氧乙烷的专利流程。Shell公司从美国出口催化剂主要是为了使用这个专利流程。271(g):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.

271（g）不适用因为没有进口到美国的行为。271(f):theCourtheldthatthecatalystwasacomponentofthepatentedprocesscitingEolas“everycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f).”271（f）条款：法院引用Eolas案中“271条款保护发明的每个形式的每一部分”原理，判定该催化剂是专利流程的一个部分。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公司有一个分享和传输数据到数据库的专利方法。BODI公司故意在国内侵权并且出口该软件。法院为计算赔偿重新开庭审理。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条款的影响IfasubsidiaryexportsanythingcreatedintheU.S.thatinfringesapatentedinventionwhencombined,arguably,thecompanymayhaveliabilityunder271(f).Naturally,thiscangreatlyenhancethecalculateddamages.

如果一个公司的子公司出口在美国制造的部件组合在一起侵犯了已经存在的专利技术，该公司应该承担271（f）条款下的侵权责任。通常情况下，这会大大的增加损害的赔偿额。35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条款的影响PriortoEolas

在Eolas案之前Methodswereexplicitlyexcludedfrom271(f)271（f）条款明确排除方法专利Componentshadtobetangible

部件必须是有形的AfterEolas

Eloas案之后Computersoftware,thoughintangible,canbeconsideredacomponent

软件即便是无形的，也可以被视为部件Moreover,theCourtheldthatmethodswerenotexcludedfrom271(f)

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

271条35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条款的影响SupremeCourtaddressed271(f)inMicrosoft:

最高法院在微软案中对271（f）的意见acopyofcomputersoftware,notthesoftwareintheabstract,qualifiesasa“component”within271(f).软件拷贝是271（f）定义下的“部件”271(f)isnotapplicablewherecomputersoftwareisfirstsentfromtheU.S.toaforeigncomputermanufactureronamasterdisk,orbyelectronictransmission,andthencopiedbytheforeignrecipientforinstallationoncomputersmadeandsoldabroad,sincethecopies,as“components”installedontheforeignmadecomputers,werenotsuppliedfromtheU.S.271（f）条款不适用软件最初以光盘的形式从美国被送到国外电脑生产商或通过电子传输给国外接收方，将其复制和安装在电脑上在境外销售。因为这些拷贝，作为“部件”被组装在外国生产的电脑上，这种情况不属于从美国供应。

35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条款的影响35U.S.C.§271afterMicrosoft在微软案件后的271条款TheSupremeCourtclearlylimitedwhatqualifiesasa“component”within271(f).

最高法院明确限定什么是271（f）条款下的“组件”However,therewasacleardistinctionwasmadebetweenhuman-readable“sourcecode”andcomputer-readable“objectcode”asacombinablecomponent.

然而，人类可读的“源编码”和机器可读的“目标代码”有明显的区别，当他们作为组合的部件。CourtsfollowingMicrosofthavenarrowedthelimitations法院根据微软案作出下一的解释限定Thelimitationson271(f)arenotapplicabletocontributoryinfringementunder271(c).

271（f）不适用于271（c）的共同贡献侵权。Thelimitationson271(f)withrespecttoapparatusclaimsmaynotbeapplicabletomethodclaims.

271（f）条款对机构权利要求的限定不适用于方法权利要求。35U.S.C.§271–Effects

271条StepsforAvoidanceofPatentInfringementintheUnitedStates

避免在美国的专利侵权步骤Coherentstrategyforavoidanceofinfringementhasmultipleparts避免侵权的相关策略有多个部分构成Clearancestudies结清研究Searches检索Freedomtooperateopinions自由使用权意见IssuesofprivilegeandcommunicationwithU.S.Attorneys特权问题并与美国的专利律师沟通Internalprocedures:triage内部程序：分类Invalidityandnon-infringementopinions无效和不侵权的意见Procedurestoavoidwillfulinfringement避免故意侵权的程序UnderstandingU.S.negotiatingstrategy了解美国谈判的策略SpecialissueswithNPEsandtheEasternDistrictofTexas与NPEs和德州东部地区相关的特别问题LitigationPreparedness诉讼准备StepsforAvoidanceofPatentAModelClearanceStudy

侵权分析模型Objectivesofaclearancestudy侵权分析的目的Understandthepatentlandscape了解专利的前景Whoaretheprincipalstakeholders谁是主要的持有人Avoidinfringement避免侵权Identifyproblemareasearly提早识别有问题的地方Timefordesign-around周边设计的时间Timeforlicensenegotiations许可协议的时间Avoidlargeinvestmentinproductthatcannotbesold避免对不能出售的产品大规模投资Avoidwillfulinfringement避免故意侵权Infringementmayresultinpayingreasonableroyaltyorlostprofits侵权可能会导致支付合理的专利许可费和失去利润Willfulinfringementmaybethreetimesthisamount故意侵权可能会导致三倍赔偿AModelClearanceStudy

侵权分析模型AModelClearanceStudy

Step1:DefinetheTeam步骤一：明确团队IPissuesareoftenlefttoonlytheIPteam知识产权问题通常只能留给知识产权团队Broaderinvolvementisimportant广泛的参与是很重要的Typicalteamprofile典型团队的概况In-houselawyerorIPexpert机构内部律师或者知识产权专家Teamleader,

responsibleforcarryingoutstrategy团队领导者，负责执行策略Managementrepresentative管理代表人Provideobjectives提供目标Liaisontocompanyexecutives与公司行政部门沟通Salesormarketingperson营销人员Provideinformationonthemarketandcompetitors提供市场和竞争者信息Engineer工程师Providetechnicalinformationonproposedproduct提供产品的技术信息Conducttechnicalanalysisofpatents进行专利技术分析AModelClearanceStudy

Step1AModelClearanceStudy

Step2:IdentifytheIssues步骤二：明确问题Identifynatureofproposedproduct识别产品的性质Specifictechnicalissues特别的技术问题Doesitusemultipletechnologies?它是否使用了多种技术？Whi