企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理

企业涉外知识产权侵权防御及管理

DefenseandStrategyofIntellectualPropertyInfringementOverview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,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。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)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.&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DirectInfringement

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。35USC271(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。DirectInfringement(cases)直接侵权（（案例）JapanesecorporationAsoldproductstoAsiancorporationB.BrequiredAtotaptheboxesoftheproductswiththeaddressofthesubsidiarycorporationofAmericancorporationBtomakeitconvenientforBtosendthemtoUSA→Isitaninfringement?日本A公司卖产品品给一个亚亚洲B公司，B公司要求A公司把产品品箱子贴上上美国B公司的子公公司的地址址方便B公司直接寄寄到美国直接侵权吗吗？No.没有。(MEMCElec.Materials,Inc.v.MitsubishiMaterialsSiliconCorp.,420F.3d1369(Fed.Cir.2005)CanadiancorporationAboughttheproductsofChinesecorporationB,andsoldthemtoAmericancorporationC;ThetradewasprocessedinCanada.Isitadirectinfringement?加拿大A公司采购中中国B公司的产品品，卖给美美国C公司；交货货是在加拿拿大直接侵侵权吗?Yes.有。(LightCubes,LLCv.NorthernLightProducts,Inc.,523F.3d1353(Fed.Cir.2008))TaiwanesecorporationAproducedelectronicproductsinShenzhen,andthetradewasprocessedinChina.Beforethetrade,AsentsomesamplestoUSAandgotUL.Isitadirectinfringement?台湾A公司在深圳圳制造电子子产品卖给给公司，在在中国交货货，交货前前寄了几个个样品到美美国取得UL认证直接侵侵权吗？Yes有。(Fellowesv.MichilinProsperityCo.,491F.Supp.2d571,583(E.D.Va.2007).)IndirectInfringement间接侵权ThePatentActdoesnotdirectlydistinguish“direct”and“indirect”infringement.美国专利法法并没有直直接区分““直接侵权权”与“间间接侵权””§271(b)and(c)aretypicallygroupedtogetheras“indirect”waysofinfringingapatent:271（b）和（（c）条款款合并规定定了“间接接的”专利利侵权方式式§271(b)createsatypeofinfringementdescribedas“activeinducementofinfringement.”271（b）的“积积极引诱””侵权§271(c)createsliabilityforthosewhohavecontributedtotheinfringementofapatent.271c对对侵权行为为提供帮助助者的法律律责任Bothtypesofindirectinfringementcanonlyoccurwhentherehasactuallybeenadirectinfringementofthepatent.上述2种间接接侵权只发生生在实际存在在一个直接侵侵权的情况下下35USC271(b),(c)

271（b）和和（c）条款款(b)Whoeveractivelyinducesinfringementofapatentshallbeliableasaninfringer（b）条款中中，积极引诱诱侵权者应被被视为侵权方方(c)WhoeverofferstosellorsellswithintheUnitedStatesorimportsintotheUnitedStatesacomponentofapatentedmachine,manufacture,combination,orcomposition,oramaterialorapparatusforuseinpracticingapatentedprocess,constitutingamaterialpartoftheinvention,knowingthesametobeespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseinaninfringementofsuchpatent,andnotastaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnon-infringinguse,shallbeliableasacontributoryinfringer.（c）条款针针对专利产品品组件的生产产、销售、组组装，该部件件是发明的一一部分且当事事人明知该部部件是特别为为专利产品生生产制造的，，且没有其他他非专利侵权权的商业用途途，该当事人人是辅助（贡贡献）侵权。。35USC271(b)(Inducement)

271（（b）条款（（引诱侵权））Section271(b)coverssituationswhereapartyactivelyinducestheinfringementofapatentbyencouraging,aiding,orotherwisecausinganotherpersonorentitytoinfringeapatent.271（b））条款规定，，一方积极主主动引诱侵权权，通过鼓励励、协助、或或其他手段促促成第三方完完成的侵权行行为。Thepotentialinducermustactuallybeawareofthepatentandintendfortheiractionstoresultinathirdpartyinfringingthatpatent.潜在的引诱者者必须意识到到专利的存在在且希望其引引诱行为会导导致第三方做做出侵权行为为。35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn271(b)条款-最高法院审理理的领域Global-TechAppliancesInc.v.SEBS.A.,No.10-6,May31,2011Global-Tech电器股份有限限公司与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.香港华利美公公司Pentalpha将深度油油炸锅的专利利卖给第三方方，而该技术术被起诉为SEB集团的专利仿仿制品35USC271(b)–SupremeCourtWeighsIn271(b)条款-最高法院审理理的领域FactsshowedthatPentalphacopiedSEB’sdesignandknewthatthedesignwaspatented事实证明，香港华利美公公司Pentalpha仿制了了SEB电子子油炸锅，并并且知道这是是专利产品。。PentalphacontactedaU.S.patentattorneyandobtainedafreedomtouseopinion.Pentalpha与美美国专利局联联系过并获得得了不侵权意意见书。Theynevertoldtheattorneyofthepatent,orthatthedesignwasacopy.Pentalpha没告告诉律师他们们制造的是仿仿制品；Pentalphastartedsellingcopiedfrierstovariousdistributors,whosoldthemintheU.S.Pentalpha公司销销售仿仿制品品给分分销商商，分分销商商把产产品卖卖到美美国。。SEBsuedPentalphaunder271(b)SEB基于于271（（b））条款款告PentalphaWinatthedistrictcourt,andsubsequentlyappeal在地方方法院院胜诉诉然后后进一一步上上诉FederalCircuitDecision联邦巡巡回法法院判判决Holding:Inducedinfringementunder35USC271(b)requires依据：：271（（b））条款款规定定下的的引诱诱侵权权要求求knowledgethattheinducedactsconstitutepatentinfringement;and知道有有专利利存在在并且且做出出引诱诱侵权权的行行为deliberateindifference(orrecklessness)toaknownriskthatapatentexistsdoesnotsatisfytheknowledgerequiredbysection271(b)故意忽视有有专利存存在的的可能能性Arecklessdefendantisonewhomerelyknowsofasubstantialandunjustifiedriskofwrongdoing.被告明明知其其行为为很可可能是是违规规的。。SupremeCourtDecision最高法法院判判决WillfulblindnessisgroundedinU.S.criminallaw“故意意视而而不见见”是是美国国刑法法中的的最重重罪责责Defendantmaybefoundliableifafindingof““deliberateshieldingthemselvesfromclearevidence””被告如如果被被发现现是““故意意忽视视明显显证据据”，，那么么应追追究其其法律律责任任Despitethehigherstandard,SupremeCourtaffirmstheFederalCircuit——Why?尽管是是一个个很高高的标标准，，最高高法院院肯定定了联联邦巡巡回法法院的的判决决———为什什么？？Failuretodisclosethatthefrierwasacopytothepatentattorneywasstrongevidencethattheactionswereintentional没有向向专利利代理理人公公开煎煎锅是是仿制制品的的行为为是证证明其其故意意行为为的强强有力力证据据；35USC271(c)(Contributory)271（（c））条款款辅助助（贡贡献））侵权权“Contributoryinfringement”istriggeredwhenasellerprovidesapartorcomponentthat,whilenotitselfinfringingofanypatent,hasaparticularuseofsomeothermachineorcompositionthatiscoveredbyapatent.“辅助助(贡贡献)侵权权”是是当卖卖方提提供部部件，，其部部件本本身不不构成成侵权权，但但部件件有专专有用用途，，用来来组建建成专专利保保护的的产品品。However,ifthereareothervalidusesfortheproduct,oritisa“staplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,”thesellerhaslikelynotcontributedtothethirdparty’sinfringement.然而，，如果果该部部件有有其他他有效效的用用途或或存在在其他他显而而易见见的非非侵权权的商商业替替代用用途，，卖方方的行行为不不构成成侵权权。35USC271(c)271（c）条条款Contributoryinfringementcanbethoughtofasatypeofinducement,inwhichtheintenttocausedirectinfringementcanbeinferredfromthefactthattheproductofferedforsaleissuitableonlyforpatentinfringement.辅助（（贡献献）侵侵权可可以被被认定定为引引诱侵侵权行行为的的一类类。其其存在在的故故意侵侵权意意图可可以通通过该该产品品事实实上只只适用用于侵侵权产产品这这一事事实进进行证证明。。“Whenamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(Fed.Cir.2008).法院判判定““部件件只能能用于于侵权权产品品，其其侵权权意图图是显显而易易见的的”JointInfringement共共同同侵权权Jointinfringementrequiresanagencyrelationshiporcontractualobligationbetweenthejointlyinfringingparties.共同侵侵权需需要存存在于于共同同侵权权人中中间的的一个个代理理关系系或合合同关关系。。AkamaiTechnologiesv.LimelightNetworks(Fed.Cir.,Aug.31,2012)(enbanc)AkamaiassertedthatLimelightdirectlyinfringedapatentdirectedtoamethodofdeliveringcontentovertheweb.Thepatentclaimseachrequiredastepof“tagging”objectsonawebpage.TherewasnodisputethatLimelightdidnottagobjects.However,Limelight’suserdocumentationincludedinstructionsfortagging,anditscustomerswouldtypicallyperformthetaggingstep.争议专利是是通过网络络标记的一一种方法。。标记是专专利实施的的必须步骤骤。Enbanccourtfoundinfringement,currentlyonappealtoSupremeCourtCaseStudy:Ricohv.Quanta案例研究：：Ricoh与QuantaRicohhasclaimstowritingandrecordingdisksonanopticaldrive.Ricoh公司有关关于光盘读读写的专利利Quantamanufactures,butsellstothirdpartieswhoincorporateintocomputersQ公司生产产，销售给给第三方，，其产品装装入电脑中中FederalCircuitfindsthatQuanta联邦巡回法法院判决Shouldnotbepermittedtoescapeliability,justbecausetheendproducthassubstantialnon-infringingusesQ公司仍然然要承担侵侵权责任，，即便他提提出其最终终产品是不不侵权It’sthecomponentthatmatters虽然是组件，但是是仍然有关关联35USC271(c)

271(c)条款“Whenamanufacturerincludesinitsproductacomponentthatcanonlyinfringe,theinferencethatinfringementisintendedisunavoidable.”RicohCo.,Ltd.v.QuantaComputerInc.,550F.3d1325,1337(Fed.Cir.2008).271（c）条款中中判定，产产品的组件件只是为了了侵权，就就可以推定定其侵权的的意图是明明确的。35USC271(f)

271（f）条条款Section271(f)ismeanttopreventpartiesfromavoidinginfringementintheU.S.byshippingapatenteddeviceinsmallercomponentsandthenassemblingthecomponentsoverseas.271(f)条款是是为防止将将美国专利利产品的部部件运到海海外组装，，从而规避避侵权责任任。CreatesacauseofactionforinfringementforsupplyingcomponentsofapatentedinventionforassemblyoutsidetheUS.法律创造了了这类侵权权可诉的行行为，即把把未组装的的部件出口口到美国境境外，在美美国境外组组装成产品品，也会构构成侵权。。OutsideUSA271(f)InfringementCase美国境外271(f)条款侵侵权案例Microsoftput“audiotransferringprogram”indisksandsentthemabroad,allowingthemanufacturestoinstalltheminPCsandsellthePCs.微软把含有有“声音转转码程序””的软件放放在光盘送送到国外让让制造商把把该软件装装到电脑里里去贩卖。。AmericandistrictcourtandFederalcircuitcourtjudged:美国地方法法院及联邦邦巡回法庭庭判决：Theprogramispatented““component”此软件是专专利的“部部件”AlthoughtheoriginaldiskswerenotinstalledinthePCs,thecopiedprogramisinfringedcomponent.虽然原来的光碟碟没有装入电电脑，复制的软件是侵侵权的部件件。AmericanSupremeCourt(2007)Judgment:美国最高法法院(2007)判判决：35USC271(f)protectsonlytangiblecomponents,excludingprograms35USC271(f)只涵盖实实体的“部部件”，不不涵盖软件件TheoriginaldiskdidnotinstalledinPCs,andthecopiedonesdonotcount原来的光碟碟没有装入入电脑，复复制的软件件不算。35USC271(f)(1)271(f)(1)条款(f)(1)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesallorasubstantialportionofthecomponentsofapatentedinvention,wheresuchcomponentsareuncombinedinwholeorinpart,insuchmannerastoactivelyinducethecombinationofsuchcomponentsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(f)(1)任何人人未经许可可，在美国国或由美国国提供或使使人提供””受专利保保护的发明明的未被组组合的全部部或主要组组件”，且且积极促使使该组件在在美国境外外进行组合合；若这组组合行为在在美国境内内是属侵犯犯专利权，，则由美国国提供或使使人提供该该组件亦属属于专利侵侵权行为。。35USC271(f)(2)271(f)(2)条款(f)(2)WhoeverwithoutauthoritysuppliesorcausestobesuppliedinorfromtheUnitedStatesanycomponentofapatentedinventionthatisespeciallymadeorespeciallyadaptedforuseintheinventionandnotastaplearticleorcommodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,wheresuchcomponentisuncombinedinwholeorinpart,knowingthatsuchcomponentissomadeoradaptedandintendingthatsuchcomponentwillbecombinedoutsideoftheUnitedStatesinamannerthatwouldinfringethepatentifsuchcombinationoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,shallbeliableasaninfringer.(f)(2)任何何人未经许许可，在美美国或从美美国提供或或促使提供供专门为实实施一项专专利发明所所用之组件件，且该组组件不是普普通物品或或具有实质质非侵权用用途之商品品，尽管该该组件尚未未部分地或或整体地组组装起来，，但该行为为人明知该该组件乃专专门用于实实施专利发发明，且希希望其在美美国境外被被组装起来来，假如这这种组装在在美国境内内将侵犯专专利权，则则行为人应应承担侵权权责任。35USC271(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将将心脏除除颤器运往往国外.Cardiac作作为专利权权人，拥有有一个除颤颤器中应用用的心脏刺刺激方法权权利要求。。Cardiac辩辩称St.Jude将心脏脏除颤器运运往国外侵侵犯了271（f））条款下心心脏刺激方方法的权利利要求；TheFederalCircuitheldSection271(f)doesnotencompassdevices,suppliedoutsidetheUS,thatmaybeusedtoperformapatentedmethod.联邦巡回法法院判定271（f）条款并并不包含在在美国境外外销售的使使用专利方方法的的设备35USC271(f)

271(f)条款Cardiaccont.Formanypatentholders,wherebothdeviceclaimsandmethodclaimscanbeincludedinissuedpatents,thiscasewillnothavemucheffect.许多专利持持有者，当当专利包含含设备权利利要求与方方法的权利利要求，本本案对这类类专利并没没有太大影影响。However,fortechnologieswhereonlymethodclaimsareavailable,thiscasecanlimitexportdamages(enforcementoutsidetheUS).然而，对只存存在方法专利利，本案可以以对出口损害害（在美国境境外的enforcement）进进行限制。Trytoincludemanyclaimtypes(e.g.,device,method,andmanufacture)andwriteclaimsfromtheperspectiveofapotentialinfringer.试图图包含更多的的权利要求类类型和书面权权利要求35USC271(g)271(g)条款(g)WhoeverwithoutauthorityimportsintotheUnitedStatesorofferstosell,sells,oruseswithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichismadebyaprocesspatentedintheUnitedStatesshallbeliableasaninfringer,iftheimportation,offertosell,sale,oruseoftheproductoccursduringthetermofsuchprocesspatent.…Aproductwhichismadebyapatentedprocesswill,forpurposesofthistitle,notbeconsideredtobesomadeafter凡未经授权而而使用已获美美国工艺专利利生产的产品品，如果在这这种工艺专利利期内将其进进口到美国或或出售，销售售，或在美国国境内使用将将承担侵权责责任。...这种根据据专利工艺生生产的产品通通过下面的步步骤可以规避避侵权：(1)itismateriallychangedbysubsequentprocesses;or（1）后续工工序发生重大大改变;(2)itbecomesatrivialandnonessentialcomponentofanotherproduct.（2）变成了了其他产品琐琐碎和不必要要的组件35USC271(g)(“Product-by-processinfringement)271（g））条款（产品品-流程侵权权）UnderSection271(g),itisillegalto“importintotheUnitedStates,”offertosell,sell,“orusewithintheUnitedStatesaproductwhichis”producedbyapatentedprocess(unlessproductismateriallychangedorbecomesnon-essentialcomponentofanotherproduct)271（g））规定，“进进口到美国销销售或在美国国境内使用””是违法行为为。Patent-by-processinfringementoccursevenifthepatentedprocessisactuallyperformedinaforeigncountry.适用于在外国国执行专利程程序方法的行行为ThepartywhoimportstheproductintotheUSisliable(nottheactualmanufactureoftheproduct,unlesstheyarethesameparty).进口产品到美美国的一方负负有责任（而而不是实际制制造方，除非非他们是同一一方）。美国境外271(g)条条款侵权案例例outsideUSA271(g)infringementcasePfizerv.Anhui辉瑞公司告合合肥香料厂侵侵权Anhuimanufacturedasweetener(maltol)inChina,thatPfizerallegedinfringedtheirprocesspatent；；辉瑞指控合肥肥香料厂用辉辉瑞专利的方方法制造麦芽芽酚(maltol)AnhuisoldtoSinochem,whosoldtoF&S,whoimportedtoU.S.合肥香料厂将将麦芽酚卖给给中化集团，，中化集团再再将麦芽酚卖卖给美国F&S公司，后后者将麦芽酚酚进口到美国国.SummaryJudgementgrantedforAnhui对于辉瑞的总总判决Judgement:Anhuimanufacturedidnotparticipatein“import””,thusdidnotviolet271(g).OnlyF&Sisliable.法院裁定：合合肥香料厂不不参与“进口口”所以没有有违反271(g)条款款，只有F&S公司承担担责任。35U.S.C.§§271––CaseLaw案例法（判例例）StandardHavensv.Gencor––Dec.1991Gencorsoldasphalt-productionplantsthatusedthepatentedmethodforproducingasphalt.Gencor公司使用专专利方法生产产销售沥青。。Oneasphalt-productionplantsoldtoforeigncustomer,whodidnotimportproductstoU.S.一个沥青产品品公司卖产品品给一个外国国客户，该客客户并没有进进口产品到美美国271(g):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausetherewasnoimportationtoU.S.271（g））条款：法院院认定无侵权权，因为没有有进口到美国国的行为。271(f):theCourtunequivocallystatedthatthereisnoimplicationof271(f)bythesaleofnon-patentedapparatustoforeigncustomerforuseoutsideofU.S.271（f））条款：法院院判定不适用用271f条条款中关于销销售非专利产产品给在美国国以外的外国国客户。35U.S.C.§§271––CaseLaw案例法（判例例）SynapticPharm.v.MDSPanlabs––June2002SynapticPharm.patentedaprocessrelatedtobiologicaltesting.MDSaffiliatePanlabsTaiwanconductedthepatentedprocessoutsidetheU.S.MDSimportedtheresultsoftheprocessintotheU.S.fromPanlabsTaiwan.Synaptic公司有有一个生物测测试流程的专专利。MDS台湾子公司司在美国境外外使用该专利利流程。MDS公司进口口该流程的结结果到美国。。271(g):theCourtfoundnoinfringementbecausediagnostic“results”arenot“products”derivedfrompatentedmanufacturingmethods.271（g）条款：：法院认定定没有侵权权，因为““结果”不不是从专利利方法生产产的“产品品”。271(f):theCourtexpresslystatedthat271(f)protectsagainsttheexportofcomponentsofpatentedinventions,notagainsttheforeignuseofprocesspatents.法院明确表表示271（f）条条款保护进进口的发明明产品的组组件。35U.S.C.§271––CaseLaw案例法（判判例）EolasTechnologiesv.Microsoft–March2005Microsoftsoftwareinfringedpatentedmethodforautomaticallyinvokingexternalapplicationprovidinginteractionanddisplayofembeddedobjects.GoldenmasterdiskscontainingtheinfringingsoftwarecodewereexportedforreplicationabroadforsaleoutsideoftheU.S.微软把含有有“声音转转码程序””的软件放放在光盘送送到国外让让制造商把把该软件装装到电脑里里去贩卖。。271(g):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.271(g)没有有进口到美美国271(f):theCourtheldthateverycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f)andthatthesoftwarecodeonthegoldenmasterdisksisa“component”ofthepatentedinvention.35USC271(f)只涵盖实实体的“部部件”，不不涵盖软件件，原来的的光碟没有有装入电脑脑，复制的的软件不算算。35U.S.C.§271––CaseLaw案例法（判判例）AT&Tv.Microsoft–April2007(USSupremeCourt)MicrosoftsoftwareincludedspeechcodesthatinfringeAT&Tpatentedmethodforprocessingspeechpatterns.GoldenmasterdiskswiththeinfringingsoftwarecodewereexportedforreplicationabroadforsaleoutsideoftheU.S.微软的软件件包含了侵侵犯了ATT公司的的专利方法法。包含侵侵权软件代代码的光碟碟出口到每每个以外进进行复制销销售。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案例法法（判判例））UnionCarbidev.ShellOil––Oct.2005UnionCarbidepatentedaprocessforproducingaethyleneoxide.ShellexportedfromtheU.S.catalystsparticularlysuitedforuseinthepatentedprocess.一种生生产环环氧乙乙烷的的专利利流程程。Shell公司司从美美国出出口催催化剂剂主要要是为为了使使用这这个专专利流流程。。271(g):notimplicatedasnoimportationtoU.S.271（g）不不适用用因为为没有有进口口到美美国的的行为为。271(f):theCourtheldthatthecatalystwasacomponentofthepatentedprocesscitingEolas“everycomponentofeveryformofinventiondeservestheprotectionof271(f).”271（f）条条款：：法院院引用用Eolas案案中““271条条款保保护发发明的的每个个形式式的每每一部部分””原理理，判判定该该催化化剂是是专利利流程程的一一个部部分。。35U.S.C.§§271––CaseLaw案例法法（判判例））Informaticav.B.O.D.I.––May2007Informaticapatentsinvolvedmethodsofsharingandtransformingdataindatabases.B.O.D.I.willfullyinfringeddomesticallyandbyexportingsoftware.Newtrialwasgrantedfordamagesrecalculation.Informatica公司司有一一个分分享和和传输输数据据到数数据库库的专专利方方法。。BODI公司司故意意在国国内侵侵权并并且出出口该该软件件。法法院为为计算算赔偿偿重新新开庭庭审理理。InformaticacontendedthatMicrosoftdoesnotdisturbtheFederalCircuit'sholdinginUnionCarbide,contrastingtheapparatusclaiminMicrosoftwiththemethodclaimshereandinUnionCarbide.However,CourtdisagreesConsistentwithUnionCarbideontheissueofdirectlysupplyingcomponentsabroad,Microsoftcontrolsontheissueof“supplying”masterdisks,notuser-readycopies,abroad.MicrosoftcallsintoquestionthereasoningofEolastotheextentthattheFederalCircuitmayhavebeenreferringtosoftwareintheabstract,ratherthancapturedinamedium.35U.S.C.§§271––Effects271条条款的影影响IfasubsidiaryexportsanythingcreatedintheU.S.thatinfringesapatentedinventionwhencombined,arguably,thecompanymayhaveliabilityunder271(f).Naturally,thiscangreatlyenhancethecalculateddamages.如果一个个公司的的子公司司出口在在美国制制造的部部件组合合在一起起侵犯了了已经存存在的专专利技术术，该公公司应该该承担271（（f）条条款下的的侵权责责任。通通常情况况下，这这会大大大的增加加损害的的赔偿额额。35U.S.C.§§271––Effects271条条款的影影响PriortoEolas在Eolas案案之前Methodswereexplicitlyexcludedfrom271(f)271（（f）条条款明确确排除方方法专利利Componentshadtobetangible部件必须须是有形形的AfterEolasEloas案之之后Computersoftware,thoughintangible,canbeconsideredacomponent软件即便便是无形形的，也也可以被被视为部部件Moreover,theCourtheldthatmethodswerenotexcludedfrom271(f)法院判定定271（f））不可以以排除方方法专利利35U.S.C.§§271––Effects271条条款的影影响SupremeCourtaddressed271(f)inMicrosoft:最高法院院在微软软案中对对271（f））的意见见acopyofcomputersoftware,notthesoftwareintheabstract,qualifiesasa“component”within271(f).软件拷贝贝是271（f）定义义下的““部件””271(f)isnotapplicablewherecomputersoftwareisfirstsentfromtheU.S.toaforeigncomputermanufactureronamasterdisk,orbyelectronictransmission,andthencopiedbytheforeignrecipientforinstallationoncomputersmadeandsoldabroad,sincethecopies,as“components”installedontheforeignmadecomputers,werenotsuppliedfromtheU.S.271（（f）条条款不适适用软件件最初以以光盘的的形式从从美国被被送到国国外电脑脑生产商商或通过过电子传传输给国国外接收收方，将将其复制制和安装装在电脑脑上在境境外销售售。因为为这些拷拷贝，作作为“部部件”被被组装在在外国生生产的电电脑上，，这种情情况不属属于从美美国供应应。35U.S.C.§§271––Effects271条条款的影影响35U.S.C.§§271afterMicrosoft在微软案案件后的的271条款TheSupremeCourtclearlylimitedwhatqualifiesasa“component”within271(f).最高法院院明确限限定什么么是271（f）条款款下的““组件””However,therewasacleardistinctionwasmadebetweenhuman-readable“sourcecode”andcomputer-readable“objectcode”asacombinablecomponent.然而，人人类可读读的“源源编码””和机器器可读的的“目标标代码””有明显显的区别别，当他他们作为为组合的的部件。。CourtsfollowingMicrosofthavenarrowedthelimitations法院根据据微软案案作出下下一的解解释限定定Thelimitationson271(f)arenotapplicabletocontributoryinfringementunder271(c).271（（f）不不适用于于271（c））的共同同贡献侵侵权。Thelimitationson271(f)withrespecttoapparatusclaimsmaynotbeapplicabletomethodclaims.271（（f）条条款对机机构权利利要求的的限定不不适用于于方法权权利要求求。StepsforAvoidanceofPatentInfringementintheUnitedStates避免在美国国的专利侵侵权步骤Coherentstrategyforavoidanceofinfringementhasmultipleparts避免侵权的的相关策略略有多个部部分构成Clearancestudies结清研究Searches检索Freedomtooperateopinions自由使用权权意见特权问题并并与美国的的专利律师师沟通Internalprocedures:triage内部程序：：分类Invalidityandnon-infringementopinions无效和不侵侵权的意见见Procedurestoavoidwillfulinfringement避免故意侵侵权的程序序UnderstandingU.S.negotiatingstrategy了解美国谈谈判的策略略SpecialissueswithNPEsandtheEasternDistrictofTexas与NPEs和德州东部部地区相关关的特别问问题LitigationPreparedness诉讼准备AModelClearanceStudy侵权分析模模型Objectivesofaclearancestudy侵权分析的目的Understandthepatentlandscape了解专利的的前景Whoaretheprincipalstakeholders谁是主要的的持有人Avoidinfringement避免侵权Identifyproblemareasearly提早识别有有问题的地地方Timefordesign-around周边设设计的的时间间Timeforlicensenegotiations许可协协议的的时间间Avoidlargeinvestmentinproductthatcannotbesold避免对对不能能出售售的产产品大大规模模投资资Avoidwillfulinfringement避免故故意侵侵权Infringementmayresultinpayingreasonableroyaltyorlostprofits侵权可可能会会导致致支付付合理理的专专利许许可费费和失失去利利润Willfulinfringementmaybethreetimesthisamount故意侵侵权可可能会会导致致三倍倍赔偿偿AModelClearanceStudyStep1:DefinetheTeam步骤一一：明明确团团队IPissuesareoftenlefttoonlytheIPteam知识产产权问问题通通常只只能留留给知知识产产权团团队Broaderinvolvementisimportant广泛的的参与与是很很重要要的Typicalteamprofile典型团团队的的概况况In-houselawyerorIPexpert机构内内部律律师或或者知知识产产权专专家Teamleader,responsibleforcarryingoutstrategy团队领领导者者，负负责执执行策策略Managementrepresentative管理代代表人人Provideobjectives提供目目标Liaisontocompanyexecutives与公司司行政政部门门沟通通Salesormarketingperson营销人人员Provideinformationonthemarketandcompetitors提供市市场和和竞争争者信信息Engineer工程师师Providetechnicalinformationonproposedproduct提供产产品的的技术术信息息Conducttechnicalanalysisofpatents进行专专利技技术分分析AModelClearanceStudyStep2:IdentifytheIssues步骤二二：明明确问问题Identifynatureofproposedproduct识别产产品的的性质质Specifictechnicalissues特别的的技术术问题题Doesitusemultipletechnologies?它是否否使用用了多多种技技术？？Whichaspectsarenew?哪些部部分是是新的的？Whatfactorsdifferentiateitinthemarketplace?在市场场中与与其他他产品品区分分的因因素是是哪些些？Consumerproductorindustrialproduct?是消费费产品品还是是工业业产品品？Willitbeusedincombinationwithotherproducts?是否会会与其其它产产品组组合在在一起起？Identifythemarket识别市市场Werewillitbesold?是否会会被出出售？？Whatarethechannelsofsale?销售渠渠道是是什么么？Whoarethetargetedpurchasers?目标购购买者者是谁谁？Whoaretheprimarycompetitors?主要竞竞争者者是谁谁？AModelClearanceStudyStep3:DefinetheSearch步骤三三：明明确检检索Selectkeyte