B.©eû·|·N¨£½Õ¬d½s¸¹337-TA-753
In this opinion in Investigation No. 337-TA-753, the Commission
affirmed the criteria for establishing a domestic industry laid out in the
337-TA-694 opinion.¦b¨ä¹ï©ó½Õ¬d½s¸¹337-TA-753ªº·N¨£¤¤¡A¸Ó©eû·|½T»{«Ø¥ß337-TA-694·N¨£©Òz¥»¦a²£·~ªº¼Ð·Ç¡CHowever, the 373-TA-753 opinion
further fleshed out how a complainant might demonstrate a strong nexus
between its investments and the asserted patent(s).µM¦Ó¡A373-TA-753·N¨£¶i¤@¨B¥R¹êì§i¦p¦ó¥i¯à®i¥Ü¨ä§ë¸ê©M¨tª§±M§Q¤§¶¡«Ü±jªº³sµ²¡CFirst, the Commission noted that while
licensing revenues can be circumstantial evidence used to support a domestic
industry, those revenues do not themselves constitute investments.º¥ý¡A©eû·|«ü¥X¡AÁöµM±ÂÅv¦¬¤J¥i¥H¬O¥Î©ó¤ä«ù¥»¦a²£·~ªº®ÇÃÒ¡A¨º¨Ç¦¬¤J¥»¨¤£ºc¦¨§ë¸ê¡CIn other words, licensing
revenues are likely not a proxy for licensing investment.´«¥y¸Ü»¡¡A±ÂÅv¦¬¤J¥i¯à¤£¬O±ÂÅv§ë¸êªº¨ú¥Nª«¡CFurther, the Commission clarified that to
satisfy a nexus between licensing investments and the asserted patent(s), a
complainant might attempt to provide evidence tied specifically to the
asserted patent(s) as opposed to licensing investments generally.¦¹¥~¡A©eû·|¼á²M¡A¬°¤Fº¡¨¬±ÂÅv§ë¸ê©M¨tª§±M§Q¤§¶¡ªº³sµ²¡Aì§i¥i¯à·|¹Á¸Õ´£¨Ñ»P¨tª§±M§Q¯S§O¬ÛÃöªºÃÒ¾Ú¡A¦Ó¤£¬O¤@¯ë»P±ÂÅv§ë¸ê¬ÛÃöªºÃÒ¾Ú¡C¦X¾AªºThe proper unit of observation,
in other words, is the asserted patent(s), not patent portfolios, patent
families, or other groups of patents.Æ[¹î³æ¤¸¡A´«¥y¸Ü»¡¡A´N¬O¨tª§±M§Q¡A¦Ó¤£¬O±M§Q²Õ¦X¡B±M§Q±Ú¡B©Î¨ä¥L±M§Q¸s¡C
C. Additional Commission OpinionsC.ÃB¥~ªº©eû·|·N¨£
Other relatively recent Commission opinions have also shed
light on this area.¨ä¥L¤ñ¸ûªñ´Áªº©eû·|·N¨£¤]ÄÄ©ú³oÓ³¡¤À¡CFor example, the Commission has
found that patent litigation expenses do not automatically qualify as
investments in the exploitation of a patent through licensing.¨Ò¦p¡A©eû·|µo²{¡A±M§Q¶D³^ªº¶O¥Î¨Ã¤£¦Û°Ê¦¨¬°³z¹L±ÂÅvªº±M§Qªº¶}µo§ë¸ê¡CIn fact, the Federal Circuit
affirmed the Commissionâ£á™s determination in the 337-TA-743 matter that
certain litigation expenses were not an investment in commercializing
patented technology.¨Æ¹ê¤W¡A¬ü°êÁp¨¹¨µ°jªk°|ªÖ©w¤F©eû·|¦b337-TA-743®×¥óªº¨M©w¡A§Y¬Y¨Ç¶D³^¶O¥Î¤£¬O¦b°Ó·~¤Æ±M§Q§Þ³Nªº§ë¸ê¡CInstead, a complainant may
attempt to demonstrate a nexus by providing evidence that negotiations were
in progress before the suit was filed;¬Û¤Ïªº¡Aì§i¥i¥H¸Õ¹ÏÂǥѴ£¨Ñ¥H¤U¤è¦¡¨Óªí©ú³sµ²¡G½Í§P¬O¦b´£¥X¶D³^¤§«e¶i¦æªºÃÒ¾Ú¡Fefforts had been made to license
the asserted patent;¤w§@¥X±ÂÅv¨tª§±M§Qªº§V¤O¡F¤Îand/or an established licensing
program existed at the time of filing whereby litigation was used as a step
toward executing an agreement./©Î¦b¥Ó½Ð®É¦s¦bªº¤w«Ø¥ß±ÂÅvpµe¡A¨ä¤¤¶D³^§@¬°´ÂµÛ°õ¦æ¦X¬ùªº¤@Ó¨BÆJ¡CPatent acquisition and reexamination
expenses comprise mere ownership costs and likely cannot be used to establish
a domestic industry.±M§Q¦¬ÁÊ©M¦A¼fªá¶O¥]¬A³æ¯Âªº¾Ö¦³Åv¦¨¥»¡A¨Ã¦³¥i¯à¤£¯à³Q¥Î¨Ó«Ø¥ß¥»¦a²£·~¡CMoreover, pre-complaint
licensing investments generally are more relevant to establishing a domestic
industry than post-complaint activities,¦¹¥~¡A¤@¯ë¨Ó»¡±±§i«eªº±ÂÅv§ë¸ê¤ñ±±§i«á¬¡°Ê§ó¬ÛÃö©ó«Ø¥ß¥»¦a²£·~¡C
|