華為專利觀察 | Means-Plus-Function兩種截然不同認(rèn)定以及侵權(quán)判定的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

文 /王國(guó)平 (華為公司知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)部) 本文系作者向IPRdaily投稿，授權(quán)首發(fā)，并經(jīng)IPRdaily編輯，轉(zhuǎn)載須征得作者同意，并注明文章來(lái)源（微信：IPRdaily）。

Means-Plus-Function兩種截然不同認(rèn)定以及侵權(quán)判定的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics案

引言

2015年6月23日，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院CAFC對(duì)Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics案做出判決：

1、維持專利權(quán)（US5436529）有效；

2、認(rèn)定“voltage source means……”不適用112, 6th，“control means capable of……”適用112, 6th；

3、判決被告侵犯原告專利，賠償原告$3million。

首先，給大家看一下權(quán)利要求：

1. An energy conversion device employing an oscillating resonant converter producing oscillations, having DC input terminals producing a control signal and adapted to power at least one gas discharge lamp having heatable filaments, the device comprising:

voltage source means providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals;

output terminals connected to the filaments of the gas discharge lamp;

control means capable of receiving control signals from the DC input terminals and from the resonant converter, and operable to effectively initiate the oscillations, and to effectively stop the oscillations of the converter; and direct current blocking means coupled to the output terminals and operable to stop flow of the control signal from the DC input terminals, whenever at least one gas discharge lamp is removed from the output terminals or is defective.

筆者試圖解析如下三個(gè)問(wèn)題：

一、權(quán)利要求1中的“voltage source means……”與“control means……”是否適用美國(guó)專利法第112條第6款（35 U.S.C. § 112. 6）；

二、如何認(rèn)定被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品具有權(quán)利要求1中的特征“control means capable of ……”；

三、對(duì)于means-plus-function （簡(jiǎn)稱：MPF）權(quán)利要求，在侵權(quán)判定中如何認(rèn)定字面侵權(quán)以及等同侵權(quán)。

大家搬個(gè)小板凳，現(xiàn)在開(kāi)講哈……

一、“voltage source means”與“control means”的認(rèn)定：

1、voltage source means的認(rèn)定：

本案中，涉訴專利的實(shí)施例中并沒(méi)有描述voltage source means是什么東東，原告引用發(fā)明人Mr. Bobel以及專家證人Dr. Victor Roberts的證言（testimony），即引入外部證據(jù)（extrinsic evidence）證明：voltage source means corresponds to a rectifier，不適用§ 112.6。地區(qū)法院和CAFC都支持了原告的觀點(diǎn)。

我們來(lái)看一下地區(qū)法院和發(fā)明人的對(duì)話：

Q. Now, sir, there’s been a lot of talk with Dr. Roberts. Did you invent voltage source means?

A. No.

Q. Did you invent the rectifier?

A. No.

從發(fā)明人的角度看， voltage source means是現(xiàn)有的技術(shù)。

地區(qū)法院認(rèn)為：

The district court cited testimony from an expert for Lighting Ballast, Dr. Victor Roberts, and the inventor, Andrzej Bobel, both of whom testified that one of skill in the art would understand the claimed “voltage source means” to correspond to a rectifier, which converts alternating current (“AC”) to direct current (“DC”), or other structure capable of supplying useable voltage to the device. Thus, the district court conclude that the term “voltage source means” had sufficient structure to avoid the strictures of § 112.6.

CAFC認(rèn)為：

The district court went on to note that the language following “voltage source means” in the claim—“providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals”—“when read by one familiar with the use and function of a lighting ballast, such as the one disclosed by the 529 Patent, [sic] would understand a rectifier is, at least in common uses, the only structure that would provide a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage”. CAFC還認(rèn)為，專家證人Dr. Roberts 解釋”the voltage source means” limitation suggests to him a sufficient structure, or class of structures, namely a rectifier if converting AC from a “power line source” to DC for a “DC supply voltage” or a battery if providing the DC supply voltage directly to the DC input terminals. This expert testimony supports a conclusion that the limitations convey a defined structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.

2. control means的認(rèn)定：

首先，在claim construction的過(guò)程中，雙方都認(rèn)為“control means”適用§ 112.6；

然后，法院解釋了權(quán)利要求1中的“control means”具有如下兩個(gè)功能：

（1）control means

（a）capable of receiving a control signal from the DC input terminals and;

（b）operable to effectively initiate oscillations, and;

（2）control means

（a）capable of receiving a control signal from the resonant converter, and;

（b）operable to effectively stop the oscillations.

最后，法院解釋了corresponding structure for the “control means” requirement. 法院認(rèn)為，the patent describes a series of discrete electrical components arrayed in a specific configuration to form three series current paths to fulfill the function of starting and stopping the oscillations of the resonant converter (see column 3, line 59 through column 4, line 21). 即，專利中描述了一系列分立電子元件以具體的設(shè)計(jì)方式形成三個(gè)電流通道，從而實(shí)現(xiàn)了初始化及停止諧振變化器的振蕩。

二、如何認(rèn)定被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品具有權(quán)利要求1中的特征“control means capable of ……

首先，對(duì)于means-plus-function claim term，如何認(rèn)定字面侵權(quán)：

“For a means-plus-function claim term, the term literally covers an accused device if the relevant structure in the accused device performs the identical function recited in the claim and that structure is identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification”. Intellectual Science &Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 589 F.3d 1179,1183.

“an equivalent structure under § 112. 6 must have been available at the time of the issuance of the claim, whereas the doctrine of equivalents can capture after-arising technology developed after the issuance of the patent”. Al-Site Corp., 174F.3d at 1320

如上，對(duì)于means-plus-function claim term，在判定字面侵權(quán)時(shí)，滿足如下三點(diǎn)：

1、被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的結(jié)構(gòu)在專利權(quán)利要求授權(quán)之時(shí)，是可獲得的；

2、被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品實(shí)現(xiàn)了與權(quán)利要求中MPF term相同的功能（performs the identical function recited in the claim）；

3、被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品具有專利實(shí)施例中相同的結(jié)構(gòu)或者相等同的結(jié)構(gòu)（structure is identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification）

其次，我們來(lái)看原告如何證明被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品具有control means的功能以及相應(yīng)的結(jié)構(gòu)：

當(dāng)當(dāng)當(dāng)……，證人Dr. Roberts出場(chǎng)：

Dr. Roberts認(rèn)為權(quán)利要求1中的“control means”為529專利實(shí)施例中control circuit 58。Dr. Roberts首先解釋了control circuit 58的結(jié)構(gòu)和功能；

接著，Dr. Roberts論證了被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的IC以及周邊分立元件為具有control means的兩個(gè)功能，Dr. Roberts進(jìn)一步解釋了被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品如何實(shí)現(xiàn)這兩個(gè)功能“The signal flows down through these resistors[,] through these discrete transistors and eventually over the integrated circuit only into a pin labeled EN2 [,] which enables oscillations.”

最后，Dr. Roberts證明了早在1980年IC就有應(yīng)用在ballast上了，Dr. Roberts進(jìn)一步證明了“anybody skilled in the art would have been aware of integrated circuits in 1993”。

結(jié)論：法院基于專家證人Dr. Roberts的證明以及證言，認(rèn)為已經(jīng)有足夠的證據(jù)證明應(yīng)用在ballasts的IC在專利授權(quán)之時(shí)就已經(jīng)存在了，而且IC的功能和結(jié)構(gòu)具有control means的功能和結(jié)構(gòu)，CAFC支持了地區(qū)法院的觀點(diǎn)。

三、對(duì)于means-plus-function （簡(jiǎn)稱：MPF）權(quán)利要求，在侵權(quán)判定中如何認(rèn)定字面侵權(quán)以及等同侵權(quán)？

對(duì)此，筆者查閱了一些判例以及論文，總結(jié)如下：

前提：我們把這個(gè)問(wèn)題限定在權(quán)利要求中具有MPF term的情形下，并且被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的其他特征與權(quán)利要求一致。

1、適用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，構(gòu)成字面侵權(quán)的情形：

被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的功能具有與MPF權(quán)利要求相同的功能，并且，被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的結(jié)構(gòu)具有與專利實(shí)施例中MPF term相同或者相等同的結(jié)構(gòu)，并且，被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的結(jié)構(gòu)在專利申請(qǐng)日/授權(quán)日之前可獲得。

2、適用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，構(gòu)成等同侵權(quán)的情形：

等同侵權(quán)三個(gè)基本：基本相同的功能、基本相同的手段、基本相同的效果

被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的功能具有與MPF權(quán)利要求的功能相等同，并且，被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的結(jié)構(gòu)落入了與專利實(shí)施例中MPF term相同或者相等同的結(jié)構(gòu)的等同結(jié)構(gòu)范圍內(nèi)（注意：在適用112.6判定等同侵權(quán)時(shí)，是可以基于專利實(shí)施例中MPF term相同或等同的結(jié)構(gòu)，再等同一次，擴(kuò)大了MPF term structure的解釋范圍）。

如下圖，可以看出，在適用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，構(gòu)成等同侵權(quán)的情形中：

對(duì)權(quán)利要求中的MPF term功能做了擴(kuò)大，基本相同的功能：

如下圖，對(duì)權(quán)利要求中MPF term實(shí)施例中描述的結(jié)構(gòu)也做了一次擴(kuò)大，基本相同的結(jié)構(gòu)：

總結(jié)：在這個(gè)案子中，我們看到找一個(gè)牛逼的專家證人是多么的重要啊。其次，權(quán)利要求中的“means”不能一概而論就認(rèn)定為適用112.6，需要結(jié)合內(nèi)部/外部證據(jù)認(rèn)定。最后，MPF權(quán)利要求并沒(méi)有那么可怕，在字面侵權(quán)不成立的情況下，還可以適用等同侵權(quán)。

非常感謝大家的認(rèn)真聽(tīng)講，不足之處，還請(qǐng)大家諒解，歡迎知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)界同行多多交流哈~

注：本文為作者的個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)，不一定代表作者過(guò)去、當(dāng)前或?qū)?lái)雇主的觀點(diǎn)

來(lái)源：IPRdaily 作者：王國(guó)平 (華為公司知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)部) 編輯：周海峰 IPRdaily

------------- IPRdaily歡迎大家投稿，分享生活、工作中的所思所想。投稿郵箱：iprdaily@163.com，或加微信iprdaily2014 ? 華為專利觀察 | Means-Plus-Function兩種截然不同認(rèn)定以及侵權(quán)判定的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)