企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理

1、企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理Defense and Strategy of Intellectual Property InfringementOverview 目录 Introduction to Direct, Indirect, Willful Infringement, USC271 as well as some related cases 直接侵权，间接侵权，故意侵权，271 条款引诱侵权及相关案例 Steps for avoidance of patent Infringement in the United States, FTO as well as some relate

2、d cases 防止侵权策略、FTO及相关案例Hidden Traps“走出去”的“尴尬”Basic Attribute of Patent Right: Regional Feature专利的基本属性：地域性 Patent is a right granted by the government, and its only valid in the authorized countries.专利是政府授予的权利，只在授权国境内有效。 The infringement occurs when the product appears in the authorized countries.产品专

3、利必须要产品在授权国内出现才侵权。 The patent can only be infringed in the countries where its authorized.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。America Patent Infringement美国专利侵权Direct Infringement(Client) - 35 USC 271(a) 直接侵权 (当事人) -271(a)条款Indirect Infringement (Accomplice)间接侵权 (共犯) Induce infringement 35 USC 271(b) 引诱侵权

4、271(b)条款 Contributory infringement 35 USC 271(c) 共同(参与)侵权271(c) 条款The behaviors above are viewed as infringements only in USA, the direct infringements outside USA are stated as follows: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: Provide components to assemble abroad 35 USC 271(f)(1)提供部件到国外组合 271(f)(1)条款 Import Am

5、erican patented methods to produce products abroad 35 USC 271(g) 进口美国专利方法在国外制造的产品- 271(g)条款 Provide patented components for specific use 35 USC 271(f)(2)提供专利特用的零件271(f)(2)条款Patent Infringement under US Law美国法中的专利侵权 In the U.S., a patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from u

6、tilizing the invention claimed in the patent. 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。 Should a person utilize that invention, without permission of the patent proprietor, they infringe that patent. 在无专利权人允许的情况下使用该发明，就是专利侵权。 See 35 U.S. Code Section 271 参见见美国专利法271条Extraterratorial Aspects of US Law治外法权

7、The general rule is that U.S. Patents only cover activities in the U.S. 美国专利法通常只适用于在美国境内的行为 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Direct Infringement直接侵

8、权 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。35 USC 271(a)271（a）条款 (a) Except as otherwise

9、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

10、的行为，是本条款中规定的侵权行为。Direct Infringement (cases)直接侵权（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 B to send them to USA Is it an infringemen

11、t?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？(MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)Canadian corporation A bought the products of Chinese corporation B, and sold them to American corporation C; The trade was processed in Ca

12、nada. Is it a direct infringement?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. (LightCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Taiwanese corporation A produced electronic products in Shenzhen, and the trade was processed in China. Before the trade, A sent some sample

13、s to USA and got UL. Is it a direct infringement?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？(Fellowes v. Michilin Prosperity Co., 491 F. Supp. 2d 571, 583 (E.D. Va. 2007).) Indirect Infringement间接侵权The Patent Act does not directly distinguish “direct” and “indirect” infringement. 美国专利法并没有直接区分

14、“直接侵权”与“间接侵权” 271(b) and (c) are typically grouped together as “indirect” ways of infringing a patent: 271（ b）和（c）条款合并规定了“间接的”专利侵权方式 271(b) creates a type of infringement described as “active inducement of infringement.” 271（b）的“积极引诱”侵权 271(c) creates liability for those who have contributed to the

15、infringement of a patent. 271c对侵权行为提供帮助者的法律责任 Both types of indirect infringement can only occur when there has actually been a direct infringement of the patent. 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35 USC 271(b), (c)271（b）和（c）条款(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infri

16、nger （b）条款中，积极引诱侵权者应被视为侵权方(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a 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 t

17、he invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. （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

18、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。35 USC 271(b) (Inducement)271（b）条款（引诱侵权） Section 271(b) covers situations where 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）条款规定，一方积极主动引诱侵权，通过鼓励、协助、

19、或其他手段促成第三方完成的侵权行为。 The potential inducer must actually be aware of the patent and intend for their actions to result in a third party infringing that patent. 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。 35 USC 271(b) Supreme Court Weighs In271 (b) 条款-最高法院审理的领域 Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 1

20、0-6, May 31, 2011 Global-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-Tech Appliances Inc. and Pentalpha Enterprises, 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. 香港华利美公司 Pentalpha将深度油炸锅的专利卖给第三方，而该

21、技术被起诉为SEB集团的专利仿制品35 USC 271(b) Supreme Court Weighs In 271 (b) 条款-最高法院审理的领域Facts showed that Pentalpha copied SEBs design and knew that the design was patented 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。 Pentalpha contacted a U.S. patent attorney and obtained a freedom to use opinion. Pentalpha与美

22、国专利局联系过并获得了不侵权意见书。They never told the attorney of the patent, or that the design was a copy. Pentalpha没告诉律师他们制造的是仿制品；Pentalpha started selling copied friers to various distributors, who sold them in the U.S. Pentalpha公司销售仿制品给分销商，分销商把产品卖到美国。SEB sued Pentalpha under 271(b) SEB基于271（b）条款告Pentalpha Win

23、at the district court, and subsequently appeal 在地方法院胜诉然后进一步上诉Federal Circuit Decision联邦巡回法院判决 Holding: Induced infringement under 35 USC 271(b) requires 依据：271（b）条款规定下的引诱侵权要求 knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement; and 知道有专利存在并且做出引诱侵权的行为 deliberate indifference (or recklessne

24、ss) to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by section 271(b) 故意忽视有专利存在的可能性 A reckless defendant is one who merely knows of a substantial and unjustified risk of wrongdoing. 被告明知其行为很可能是违规的。 Supreme Court Decision最高法院判决 Willful blindness is grounded in U.S. crimin

25、al law “故意视而不见”是美国刑法中的最重罪责 Defendant may be found liable if a finding of “deliberate shielding themselves from clear evidence” 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 Despite the higher standard, Supreme Court affirms the Federal CircuitWhy? 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？ Failure to disclose that the frier w

26、as a copy to the patent attorney was strong evidence that the actions were intentional 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；35 USC 271(c) (Contributory)271（c）条款辅助（贡献）侵权 “Contributory infringement” is triggered when a seller provides a part or component that, while not itself infringing of any patent, h

27、as a particular use of some other machine or composition that is covered by a patent. “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, 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 sell

28、er has likely not contributed to the third partys infringement. 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。35 USC 271(c)271（c）条款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 of

29、fered for sale is suitable only for patent infringement. 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。“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.,

30、 550 F.3d 1325, 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”Joint Infringement共同侵权Joint infringement requires an agency relationship or contractual obligation between the jointly infringing parties. 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。Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 20

31、12) (en banc) Akamai asserted that Limelight directly infringed a patent directed to 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

32、 included instructions for tagging, and its customers would typically perform the tagging step. 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。En banc court found infringement, currently on appeal to Supreme CourtCase Study: Ricoh v. Quanta案例研究： Ricoh 与 Quanta Ricoh has claims to writing and recording disks on an op

33、tical drive. Ricoh公司有关于光盘读写的专利 Quanta manufactures, but sells to third parties who incorporate into computers Q公司生产，销售给第三方，其产品装入电脑中 Federal Circuit finds that Quanta 联邦巡回法院判决 Should not be permitted to escape liability, just because the end product has substantial non-infringing uses Q公司仍然要承担侵权责任，即便

34、他提出其最终产品是不侵权 Its the component that matters 虽然是组件，但是仍然有关联35 USC 271(c) 271(c) 条款 “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)

35、. 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。35 USC 271(f)271（f）条款 Section 271(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)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。 Creates a cause of

36、 action for infringement for supplying components of a patented invention for assembly outside the US. 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。Outside USA 271(f) Infringement Case 美国境外271(f)条款侵权案例Microsoft put “audio transferring program” in disks and sent them abroad , allowing the manufac

37、tures to install them in PCs and sell the PCs. 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。American district court and Federal circuit court judged: 美国地方法院及联邦巡回法庭判决： The program is patented “component” 此软件是专利的“部件” Although the original disks were not installed in the PCs, the copied program is infringe

38、d component. 虽然原来的光碟没有装入电脑，复制的软件是侵权的部件。American Supreme Court(2007) Judgment: 美国最高法院(2007)判决： 35 USC 271(f ) protects only tangible components, excluding programs 35 USC 271(f)只涵盖实体的“部件”，不涵盖软件 The original disk did not installed in PCs, and the copied ones do not count 原来的光碟没有装入电脑，复制的软件不算。35 USC 271

39、(f)(1)271(f)(1)条款 (f)(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes 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

40、such components 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)(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。35 USC 271(

41、f)(2)271(f)(2)条款(f)(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes 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 noni

42、nfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in 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, s

43、hall be liable as an infringer. (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。35 USC 271(f)271（f）条款 Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical, 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). St. Jude shippe

44、d implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) overseas. Cardiac, 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 met

45、hod. 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； The Federal Circuit held Section 271(f) does not encompass devices, supplied outside the US, that may be used to perform a patented method. 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35 USC 2

46、71(f)271(f)条款Cardiac cont. For many patent holders, where both device claims and method claims can be included in issued patents, this case will not have much effect. 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, for technologies where only method claims are available, this case can limit exp

47、ort damages (enforcement outside the US). 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。 Try to include many claim types (e.g., device, method, and manufacture) and write claims from the perspective of a potential infringer. 试图包含更多的权利要求类型和书面权利要求35 USC 271(g) 271(g)条款(g) Whoever without authority impo

48、rts into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within 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 pr

49、oduct which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after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) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or （1）后续工序发生重大改变; (2) it becomes a trivi

50、al and nonessential component of another product. （2）变成了其他产品琐碎和不必要的组件35 USC 271(g) (“Product-by-process infringement) 271（g）条款（产品-流程侵权）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 paten

51、ted process (unless product is materially changed or becomes non-essential component of another product) 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-process infringement occurs even if the patented process is actually performed in a foreign country. 适用于在外国执行专利程序方法的行为The party who imports the product i

52、nto the US is liable (not the actual manufacture of the product, unless they are the same party). 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outside USA 271(g) infringement case Pfizer v. Anhui 辉瑞公司告合肥香料厂侵权 Anhui manufactured a sweetener (maltol) in China, that Pfizer alleged infringed their

53、 process patent； 辉瑞指控合肥香料厂用辉瑞专利的方法制造麦芽酚 (maltol) Anhui sold to Sinochem, who sold to F&S, who imported to U.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. Summary Judgement granted for Anhui 对于辉瑞的总判决 Judgement: Anhui manufacture did not participate in “import”, thus did not violet 271(g). Only F

54、&S is liable. 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。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law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公司使用专利方法生产销售沥青。 One asphalt-production plant sold to foreign customer, who did

55、not import products to U.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): the Court found no infringement because there was no importation to U.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): the Court unequivocally stated that there is no implication of 271(f) by the sale of non-patented apparatus to foreign

56、customer for use outside of U.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。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law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 impor

57、ted the results of the process into the U.S. from Panlabs Taiwan. 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): the Court found no infringement because diagnostic “results” are not “products” derived from patented manufacturing methods. 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”。

58、 271(f): the Court expressly stated that 271(f) protects against the export of components of patented inventions, not against the foreign use of process patents. 法院明确表示271（f）条款保护进口的发明产品的组件。35 U.S.C. 271 Case Law案例法（判例） Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft March 2005 Microsoft software infringed patented

59、method for automatically invoking 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): not implicated

60、 as no importation to U.S. 271(g) 没有进口到美国 271(f): the Court held that every component of every form of invention deserves the protection of 271(f) and that the software code on the golden master disks is a “component” of the patented invention. 35 USC 271(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。35 U.