2013年9月5日 星期四

觸控螢幕保護貼的專利訴訟- Aevoe v. AE Tech (Fed. Cir. 2013)

這件訴訟為Aevoe v. AE Tech (Fed. Cir. 2013),Aevoe擁有觸控顯示面板保護貼專利US8,044,942,對AE Tech與其販售商S&F提出侵權告訴(2011年12月),但此案同時也在專利局進行再審程序,顯然,美國行政、司法在此事沒有互相影響。

此件專利侵權案在地方法院判為侵權成立,而AE Tech可能因為失誤,忘了在期限內(判決後30日內)提出上訴通知(notice of appeal),於是侵權案在地方法院判決確定,侵權成立。

之後或是訴訟期間,AE Tech有提出新的經過迴避設計的產品,但是地方法院認為新的產品與舊的產品相比,並未有新的功能變化,修改的部份也無濟於事,所以仍來加入侵權產品行列,而且原本置身事外的銷售商S&F為利害關係人(亞義的唯一銷售方)因此,也被納入被告。

不過,地方法院因為新產品的加入而"修改了"侵權判決書,僅是語言上的修改,但是這"似乎"讓出了一個空間讓亞義趁機提出上訴,不過,這個上訴仍是被CAFC所駁回,認為:地方法院稍微修改的初步禁制令(preliminary injunction order)並非是「修改(modifying)」禁令;亞義曾於前次禁制令放棄上訴權利(可能是不小心);以及藐視法庭(不知有沒有認知錯誤?),因此不准上訴。

上述判斷地方法院並非修改禁制令是因為新的產品仍如舊的被告產品一般,都在專利權的解釋範圍內,因此原本的禁制令並未改變。

[原文]
(1) the minor change to the preliminary injunction order does not account as a decision "modifying" the order;
(2) AE Tech had waived it right to appeal the original order; and
(3) contempt decisions regarding preliminary injunctions are not immediately appealable.


還是可以看看侵權判斷的內容:
CAFC為了要撤銷這個上訴,還是要講清楚新設計的產品仍是侵權產品,為的是證明地方法院兩次的初步禁制令沒有改變任何實質效力。

第一次禁制令:

針對新的迴避設計產品,有第二次修改,並被亞義要求刪掉一些藐視法庭的內容:


再次修改:



參考一下專利案Claim 1:
1. A touch screen protector for a hand held electronic device having a front face that includes a touch screen portion and an outer perimeter comprising:
a plastic film having front and back sides, an outer perimeter that corresponds to that of the device, and a transparent window that corresponds in size to the touch screen portion; and
a spacer provided along the outer perimeter of the plastic film continuously surrounding the transparent window, having a thickness sufficient to space the plastic film near but not in contact with the touch screen portion, and an exposed adhesive for removably mounting the protector upon the outer perimeter of the front face to form an enclosed air space between the transparent window of the plastic film, the spacer and the touch screen portion of the device;
wherein the window can be pressed against the touch screen portion for operation of the electronic device while preventing direct contact of a user's fingers with the touch screen portion and without producing visible interference patterns during use.

CAFC駁回上訴的檔案為:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1422.Opinion.8-27-2013.1.PDF
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1422.Opinion.8-27-2013.1.PDF
(link updated on Dec. 25, 2015)

亞義對該專利提出再審(re-examination),目前尚無結論,不過已經有明顯前案,且已第一次駁回專利,資料可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/blog-post_30.html

Ron

沒有留言: