美國最高法院裁決通過專利權(quán)利人獲準「境外利潤損失賠償」決議！

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)表，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura A. Lydigsen律師 及Judy K. He律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

原標題：美國最高法院于WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.案中獲準境外利潤損失賠償

本文案件中，美國最高法院裁決通過了專利權(quán)利人可能獲得境外利潤損失賠償?shù)臎Q議，盡管該裁決目前嚴格限制于35 U.S.C. § 271(f) (2)下侵權(quán)行為導致的損害賠償，但本案很可能會打開根據(jù)§ 271其它侵權(quán)條款所要求的法定境外利潤損失賠償?shù)拇箝T。

本月，美國最高法院在WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.一案中以7：2的裁定結(jié)果判決在35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) 和 §284條下，專利權(quán)利人可能獲得境外利潤損失賠償，該判決擴充了專利法下可獲賠償?shù)姆秶?br/>

案件背景

WesternGeco LLC就其擁有的四項海底勘探技術(shù)專利，根據(jù)§§ 271(f)(1) 及 (f)(2)對ION Geophysical Corp.提出指控。ION在美國為競爭系統(tǒng)制造組件，然后將這些組件運往境外的公司。這些境外公司隨后將組件與系統(tǒng)結(jié)合并與WesternGeco競爭。庭審中，陪審團判定ION賠償WesternGeco 1250萬美元作為在美國制造組件的合理許可費，及9340萬美元作為WesternGeco失去境外公司銷售的利潤損失。在ION的上訴中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院裁定根據(jù)§ 271(f)(2) ION應承擔責任，但專利法不允許WesternGeco獲得9340萬美元的境外銷售損失賠償。

法條拓展

§ 271(f)(1)：在美國或從美國供應未經(jīng)許可專利物之元件全部或主要部分，并積極誘導境外實體在美國之外組裝完成侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的，應作為侵權(quán)人承擔責任。

§ 271(f)(2)：在美國或從美國供應未經(jīng)許可的任何專利物之元件，而此元件特別用于專利物上，并對不侵權(quán)使用非主要部分，知曉該元件的制造及意圖于美國境外組裝的方式會造成侵權(quán)，應作為侵權(quán)人承擔責任。

§ 284 條規(guī)定專利侵權(quán)損害賠償，（節(jié)選）條文指法院在確認侵權(quán)事實后，應判定給索賠人（Claimant）足夠的損害賠償以彌補侵權(quán)，且在任何情況下賠償不得低于侵權(quán)人對本發(fā)明使用所應付的合理使用費，連同利息與相關(guān)法院費用 …… 在任何一種情況下，法院或可將損害賠償提升至所確認或評估的三倍。

治外法權(quán)（Extraterritoriality）：屬于免除被當?shù)胤晒茌牭那樾危ǔ橥饨徽勁械慕Y(jié)果。治外法權(quán)可適用于物理場所，如外國大使館、外國軍事基地或聯(lián)合國辦事處。

治外法權(quán)推定不適用原則（Presumption against Extraterritoriality）指除非國會有明確的相反表示，通常情況推定美國聯(lián)邦法律的效力不及于美國境外。

最高法院判決

最高法院推翻了聯(lián)邦巡回法院駁回利潤損失賠償?shù)牟枚ǎ罡叻ㄔ赫J為“本案中法律關(guān)注的行為是在美國境內(nèi)發(fā)生的（Conduct relevant to the statutory focus in this case is domestic）。”因此，WesternGeco獲得9340萬美元的境外銷售損失賠償并非美國法律所不允許的治外法權(quán)適用。法院的理由是§ 284 條重點聲明“法院應判定給索賠人足夠的損害賠償以彌補侵權(quán)”，法院認為 § 271(f)(2)條下所涉及的侵權(quán)問題“集中在美國境內(nèi)行為，”特別是法條中闡述的“在美國或從美國提供?！币虼朔ㄔ嚎偨Y(jié)，因為WesternGeco的利潤損失賠償不過是“對§ 284 條的國內(nèi)適用（a domestic application of § 284），”賠償不因治外法權(quán)而被禁止。

本案有兩點懸而未決有趣的問題。

第一，通過認定利潤損失賠償屬于國內(nèi)活動范疇，法院回避解決“治外法權(quán)推定不適用原則”是否可應用于如35 U.S.C. § 284這樣的法條，其僅對國會宣布的非法行為提供一般性賠償救濟。

第二，法院拒絕解答是否其它原則，如近因原則（Proximate cause，指如果沒有該原因則結(jié)果不會產(chǎn)生，近因不一定與結(jié)果在時間或者空間上最為接近，而是與造成結(jié)果最為接近），可于特定情況下限制或排除損害賠償，”因此遺留下的問題是，可能由于國內(nèi)侵權(quán)行為造成的境外損失有多大可能仍獲得補償。

Gorsuch法官對判決發(fā)表了反對意見，Breyer法官也加入其中，反對意見援引與主流意見相同的“侵權(quán)”參考法條§ 284但得出相反結(jié)論：“因為侵權(quán)必須發(fā)生在美國境內(nèi)，這意味著原告可獲得在美國境內(nèi)制造、使用或銷售其發(fā)明的損害賠償，但不是在其它地方制造、使用或銷售其發(fā)明?！狈磳σ庖妼χ髁饕庖姳硎緭鷳n“其將有效地允許美國專利權(quán)人利用美國法院將他們的壟斷延伸到國外市場，”并指出“擴大損害賠償”的“戲劇性例子”在理論上會被大多數(shù)意見所支持，例如，基于對美國原型微芯片的侵權(quán)而發(fā)展出對微芯片全球銷售利潤損失的賠償。

啟示

盡管最高法院對本案的裁決嚴格限制于35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) 下侵權(quán)行為導致的損害賠償，但本案很可能會打開根據(jù)§ 271其它侵權(quán)條款所要求的法定境外利潤損失賠償?shù)拇箝T。雖然反對意見預測到美國專利保護戲劇性的擴張，近因的一般原則可能會對過度延伸的賠償理論進行檢測。

對本案原告及被告而言，最高法院的判決可能并不會結(jié)束雙方的爭議。2018年5月7日，聯(lián)邦巡回法院確認了PTAB裁定的WesternGeco 索要9340萬美元的銷售損失賠償中4項專利中的3項均為無效的裁決?；谶@些無效的專利權(quán)利要求，WesternGeco索要的9340萬美元銷售損失賠償可能會受到挑戰(zhàn)。

附：英文全文

Supreme Court Allows Foreign Lost Profits Recovery in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.

On June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011 (2018), in which it held that a patent owner may recover foreign lost profits under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(f)(2) and 284, expanding the scope of damages available under the Patent Act.

Background

WesternGeco LLC asserted four patents for ocean floor survey technology against ION Geophysical Corp. under §§ 271(f)(1) and (f)(2). ION manufactured components for a competing system in the United States and then shipped those components to companies abroad. Those overseas companies then combined the components into systems that competed with WesternGeco. At trial, the jury awarded WesternGeco $12.5 million in reasonable royalties for the manufacture of the components in the United States and $93.4 million in lost profits for the sales WesternGeco lost to the overseas companies. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that ION was liable under § 271(f)(2), but that the Patent Act did not permit WesternGeco to recover the $93.4 million in lost foreign sales.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s denial of lost profits, finding that the “conduct relevant to the statutory focus in this case is domestic.”  Consequently, WesternGeco’s recovery of $93.4 million in lost profits for the foreign sales was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of U.S. law. The Court reasoned that the focus of § 284’s pronouncement that the “court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement” is “the infringement.” The infringement in question occurred under § 271(f)(2), which the Court found “focuses on domestic conduct,” specifically “suppl[ying] in or from the United States.” Thus, the Court concluded that because WesternGeco’s award of lost profits was no more than “a domestic application of § 284,” the award was not barred due to extraterritoriality.

WesternGeco is interesting for what it left undecided. First, by finding the award of lost profits pertained to domestic activity, the Court sidestepped resolving whether the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to statutes such as 35 U.S.C. § 284 that merely provide a general damages remedy for conduct that Congress has declared unlawful. Second, the Court declined to address whether “other doctrines, such as proximate cause, could limit or preclude damages in particular cases,” thus leaving for another day the question of how far removed damages incurred overseas may be from the domestic infringing act to still be compensable.

Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer, cited the same reference to “the infringement” in § 284 relied on by the majority, but reached the opposite conclusion: “Because an infringement must occur within the United States, that means a plaintiff can recover damages for the making, using, or selling of its invention within the United States, but not for the making, using, or selling of its invention elsewhere.”  The dissenters expressed concern that the opinion “would effectively allow U.S. patent owners to use American courts to extend their monopolies to foreign markets,” and pointed to “dramatic examples” of expanded damages that would theoretically be permitted by the majority’s opinion, e.g., recovery of worldwide lost profits for microchip sales based on the development of an infringing prototype microchip in the United States.

Implications

While the Supreme Court’s holding in WesternGeco is limited strictly to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2), WesternGeco will likely open the door for recovery of foreign lost profits under other statutory bases for infringement under § 271. Notwithstanding the dissent’s predictions of dramatic expansion of U.S. patent protection, general principles of proximate cause may check overreaching damages theories.

As for WesternGeco and ION, the Supreme Court’s decision is likely not the end of their dispute. On May 7, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s invalidation of claims of three of the four asserted patents that gave rise to WesternGeco’s $93.4 million lost profits award. See WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., Case No. 2016-2099. Given the invalidation of these patent claims, WesternGeco may face a challenge to the amount of its $93.4 million lost profits recovery.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Laura A. Lydigsen律師 及Judy K. He律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

鏈接未來！「2018全球區(qū)塊鏈知識產(chǎn)權(quán)峰會」重磅來襲！

2018年“中國好專利”評選工作正式開啟（報名通道）

2018中國·海淀高價值專利培育大賽正式開啟?。▓竺斍椋?/span>

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構(gòu)、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://islanderfriend.com/”