104年12月號 道 法 法 訊 (284)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

 
通往國際貿易委員會(ITC)橋梁的戰爭：
授權投資作為非專利實施實體(NPE)建立國內產業的手段

 

黃郁靜 專利工程師

•陽明大學物理治療系

•陽明大學生物藥學所

 

 
 

由於預投訴授權投資一般都比後投訴活動更有關於建立本地產業，NPE可能需要在提出申訴之前對授權進行投資。An NPE may rely on its return on licensing investment as circumstantial evidence of substantiality.一個NPE可以依靠其對授權投資的回報作為實體性的間接證據。This analysis should be tied to the asserted patent.這種分析應與系爭專利連結。

 

V. V. The Future of NPEs and the ITCNPEs及ITC的未來

    Recently, the ITC has paid increased attention to NPE and to impact of NPE activity.近日，ITC已經越來越關注NPE和NPE活動的影響。Many surmised that the explosion of ITC investigations over the past few years was due, at least in part, to increased filings by Category 2 NPE (ie, those that fit the classic patent troll definition).許多人推測，ITC調查在過去幾年的爆發至少部分是因為，第二類NPEs的增加申請（即符合典型專利流氓定義者）。However, since the Supreme Court May 2006 decision in eBey v. MercExchange, the ITC instituted 301 investigations through the first quarter of 2013, with only 27 (9%) of those complaints being filed by Category 2 NPE.然而，自最高法院2006年5月對於eBay v. MercExchange的判決，ITC在2013年第一季提起301項調查，​​只有27件投訴（9％）是由第二類NPEs提出的。Category 1 NPE accounted for only 33 (11%) investigations.a第一類NPEs僅佔33件調查（11％）。註1

 

    Nonetheless, NPE may favor ITC actions over federal court litigation.然而，NPEs可能偏好ITC的行動更勝於聯邦法院的訴訟。ITCThe ITC attempts to provide a relatively expedited docket that allows for quick decisions as well as powerful remedies such as exclusion orders.試圖提供一個相對加急案卷，允許進行快速判決以及強大的補救措施(如排除令)。即使Even the threat of an exclusion order may encourage a respondent to settle with a NPE for a larger payout than in a district court action in which an injunction is less likely.排除令的威脅可能會鼓勵被告以較大的支出而與NPE和解，而不是在不太可能拿到禁制令的區域法院提起訴訟。對NPEs來說，Other advantages of ITC proceedings for NPE include the ability to join multiple respondents and to burden respondents with massive discovery requests.b These advantages may be especially important in the wake of the America Invents Act and its associated requirements.c However, unlike the 26% success rate experienced by NPE in district court, since eBay only four NPE (two Category 1 NPE and two Category 2 NPE) have obtained exclusion orders, with all four NPE having developed the technology at issue.36ITC程序的其他優點包括聯合多個被告以及使被告負擔大規模的發現請求。註2 在美國發明法及其相關規定之後，這些優勢可能是特別重要的。註3 然而，與NPEs在地方法院經歷26％的成功率不同的是，因為eBay只有四個NPEs（2個第一類NPEs和兩個第二類NPEs）已獲得排除令，而所有四個NPEs已經開發系爭的技術。註4

aA PricewaterhouseCoopers' 2013 Patent litigation Study found that the median damage awarded to NPE, albeit not at the ITC, from 2007 through 2012 equaled $7.2 million as opposed to $3.8 million for practicing entities.

註1. PricewaterhouseCoopers 2013專利訴訟的研究發現，從2007年到2012年，核判予NPE的平均損害賠償，儘管不是在ITC，相當於$ 720萬美元，而不是執業實體的$380萬美元。However, over the same time period, NPE success rates had fallen to 26% as compared to success rates of 38% for practicing entities.然而，在同一時間內，與執業實體的38％成功率相比，NPEs成功率下降到26％。參See PRICEWATERHOSECOOPERS 2013 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY, 1995-2012.見PRICEWATERHOSECOOPERS 2013專利訴訟研究，1995-2012。

 

註2. ITCb.The ITC has recently amended rules regarding discovery with the “intended effect” of reducing expensive, inefficient, unjustified, or unnecessary discovery practices.最近已修訂有關具有“預期效果” 的發現的規則，這些效果減少昂貴、低效、不合理、或不必要的發現慣例。參See International Trade Commission 19 CFRPart 210 Rules of Adjudication and Enforcement, 78 Fed.見美聯邦規則第78冊第98頁，判決與執行（2013年5月21日）的國際貿易委員會19 C.F.R.Part 210規則。 Reg. 98 (May 21, 2

 

註3.c. “ITC is a More Desirable Venue in the Wake of AIA,” at http://www.law360.com/articles/412698/itc-is-a-more-desirable-venue-in-the-wake -of-aia(last visited June 11, 2013“ITC是在AIA之後更理想的地點，”在http://www.law360.com/articles/412698/itc-is-a-more-desirable-venue-in-the-wake -of-aia (最後訪問2013年6月11日）。Interestingly, while Congress seemingly targeted NPE with the passage of this act, the consequence may be an increased NPE caseload for the ITC.有趣的是，美國國會雖似乎有針對NPEs使這一法案通過，其後果可能是增加ITC的NPE工作量。參See Sara Jeruss, Robin Feldman, and Joshua Walker, The America Invests Act 500: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation, 11 DUKE L. & TECH.見Sara Jeruss，Robin Feldman和Joshua Walker，在美國投資法案500：專利貨幣化實體對在美國訴訟的影響，11 DUKE L.＆TECH. REREV. 357 (2012).357（2012）。

 

註4.d. “Facts and Trends Regarding USITC Section 337 Investigations,” prepared by the US International Trade Commission, at http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/357facts.pdf (last visited June 11, 2013).由美國國際貿易委員會在http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/357facts.pdf（上次訪問2013年6月11日）所編制的“關於USITC 337條調查的事實和趨勢”。Note that “success” as defined by PricewaterhouseCoopers “includes instances where a liability and damages/permanent injunction (if included) decision was made in favor of the patent holder.” See PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 2013 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY, 1995-2012.請注意，由PricewaterhouseCoopers所定義的“成功”，“包括作出有利於專利持有人的責任和賠償/永久禁令（如有）判決的情況”。參見PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 2013年專利訴訟研究，1995-2012。