[美國] 請求項建構之原則 (Phillips案)

發布：

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

歷史背景及判決影響：

請求項建構(Claim Construction)為專利侵權及有效性判斷中的重要工作，因此也成為專訟的兵家必爭之地。請求項建構為一法律問題(matter of law)，但又摻雜了與事實問題(matter of fact)的成分，因此在判斷上極為複雜。請求項的文字、說明書、審查歷史、字典、專家證人的證詞皆有可能影響請求項建構的方向，其中又以內部證據(intrinsic evidence)與外部證據(extrinsic evidence)的孰先孰後為論戰的焦點。由於不同案件中常無明確標準可循，CAFC的否決率(reversal rate)也非常高。

在Markman案(1995)1 及Vitronics案(1996)2 中，CAFC使用了較傳統的解釋方法，即在解釋專利範圍時「應」參考說明書。此法的缺點在於法官經常以說明書中的限制侷限專利範圍。因此，CAFC在一些判決中也可能跳過說明書作就做出專利範圍解釋。在 2002 年的Texas Digital案中，CAFC甚至發展出以字典為核心的請求項建構方法，即是以字典了解字詞的普通及習慣意思(ordinary and customary meaning)，而說明書僅有在產生明顯限制且與普通意思相牴觸時才可使用(此步驟降格成一核對的工作)。此方法雖避免了錯誤地限縮請求項，但產生諸多盲點，例如兩造會選擇對自己有利的字典，其解釋也有可能不是PHOSITA所了解的涵義。由於此案與CAFC的先前判例相左，如何解釋請求項更顯困難。

為解決此問題，CAFC(en banc)在Phillips案中同意大部分法庭之友意見書(Amicus brief)的看法，重新確立內部證據優於外部證據的原則，並廢棄Texas Digital案的決定。CAFC也重申正確的請求項建構應該是PHOSITA在申請當時基於說明書所理解的意涵。然而，Phillips案僅解決部分爭議，至於應仰賴說明書詮釋請求項到何種地步，仍未提供明確指引。

判決重點：

  1. 內部證據優於外部證據。3
  2. 法官在運用不同證據時，其先後順序並不重要，重點是對此些證據施加合適的比重。4
  3. 仍要注意不將說明書的限制讀進請求項中。5
  4. 審查歷史的重要性較比說明書低。6
  5. 請求項建構時並非一定要考慮有效性。7
  6. 重申請求項差異原則(Claim differentiation doctrine)8

本案歷程：

Edward H. Phillips的US4,677,798 專利是有關監獄隔間牆的建築模組，有防火、抗噪音、防衝擊的功能。Phillips與被告簽訂販售產品的合約，但在合約終止後被告仍持續進行銷售，Phillips因而控告對方專利侵權及營業秘密侵害。

地院階段：

由於請求項中使用到means字眼，地院法官判定其為手段功能用語(means plus function)，造成請求項中一的「檔板」(baffles)被解釋為需以銳角或鈍角的方式由外牆沿伸向內以改變射出物(如子彈)的方向，而被告產品則是以 90 度向內延伸。地院最終作出不侵權的簡易判決(Summary Judgment)，之後本案上訴至CAFC。

CAFC (panel)：

CAFC認為「檔板」的文字本身即已有足夠的結構揭露，因此並非手段功能用語。法官接著考量內部證據，由於說明書到此發明藉由有角度的檔板提供衝擊抗性(改變射出物的方向)，因此專利範圍僅能限縮在有角度的檔板，故維持地院不侵權的判決。三位法官中有一位不同意，認為不應將說明書的限制加入請求項中(其他理由還包括：說明書中並未指出隔板必須是 90 度之外的角度、衝擊抗性僅是發明欲解決問題之一、要每一請求項皆達到所有提及的目的是不適當的)，且應採用Texas Digital案中字典優先的解釋方法。由於法官們對於請求項建構的方法沒有共識，故案件進入進行全院聯席審理。

CAFC (en banc)：

全院聯席判決是由Bryson法官執筆，另外有 8 位法官同意其看法。判決中亦同意檔板並非手段功能用語，接著肯定CAFC以內部證據為先的判例(Markman, Vitronics, Innova)，也就是請求項中的文字應給予普通且慣用的意涵，而這是PHOSITA在專利的有效申請日所了解的意義。由於PHOSITA是從整篇專利的上下文來理解請求項，故說明書極為重要。另外，CAFC雖可理解Texas Digital案欲解決將說明書限制加入請求項的情形，但該案仍然太依賴外部證據而忽視了內部證據。法官說明外部證據較不可靠的原因在於：

  1. 並非專利文件的一部分，通常也不是在專利申請時產生的。
  2. 並非該技藝領域人士所撰寫，不一定能反應習知技藝者的認知。
  3. 若是為了訴訟產生或篩選出的證據，容易有偏見(尤其是專家證詞)。
  4. 過度依賴外部證據可能減損公眾原本依賴的內部證據之重要性，削弱了專利的公示性。

判決中亦體認到說明書限制請求項範圍的問題仍可能存在，故重申：

  1. 將說明書限制加入請求項文字是不適當的。
  2. 即使只有一個實施例，將此實施例的限制加入請求項仍然是不適當的。
  3. 比起說明書中的實施例，請求項可能有不同的標的物。

多數意見認知到要區分「依說明書解釋請求項」(reading a claim in light of the specification)與「加入說明書的限制」(reading a limitation into the claim from the specification)兩者是十分困難的，但也說明閱讀說明書時只要記得說明書中的例子是拿來教導PHOSITA如何實施此發明，應可得知專利權人究竟只是要提供發明的具體實施例，或是有意要讓請求項與實施例有同樣的範圍。9 最終，判決說明沒有任何神奇的公式可以解釋請求項，所以法院可以使用任何證據來源，但要對此些證據施加合適的比重(appropriate weight)，且不能與明確的內部證據產生牴觸。

針對本案的專利請求項，多數意見表示：

  1. 檔板本身在請求項中已有三個限制(以鋼製成、必須受壓、向內突出)。
  2. 由於附屬項特別指出檔板要朝向一角度以使投射物轉向，若獨立項被限縮在有角度的隔板，會使附屬項變成多餘的。
  3. 多數意見同意panel判決中的不同意見(使投射物轉向只是發明目的的其中之一)。說明書中的檔板具有其他功能，例如三角的擋板可以抗壓、互扣的擋板之間可以填充材料以隔音隔熱。

CAFC也否定了被告所主張應採讓專利有效的方式進行請求項建構，說明此步驟不是必須的，且此法則只在請求項解釋完成後仍然模糊不清時才使用，而但在本案中，請求項並不是模糊不清的。最終CAFC推翻了地院未侵權的簡易判決(Summary Judgment)。

不同意見書 (Dissenting Opinions)

Lourie法官雖同意請求項解釋的方法，但不同意CAFC依此法的解釋結果。聯席判決的目的是在確定請求項解釋的方法，而地院與CAFC panel所使用的方法(內部證據優先)已經在en banc判決中確認是正確的。Lourie法官強調所有被揭露的檔板都有角度以使投射物轉向，且在沒有證明地院有嚴重錯誤的情況下，應該要傾向接受地院的解釋。Mayer法官也提出不同意見書，認為應對地院的請求項解釋予以尊重。Mayer法官堅持請求項解釋在先天上就包含事實問題，重新審查(reviewed de novo )的行為會造成不確定性，因為CAFC並沒有考量到其中的事實成分(factual component)。相較之下，地院審判前的Markman hearings有時比陪審團審判耗時更久，法院也會考慮兩方的意見以詮釋請求項，CAFC不該假裝請求項解釋僅是法律而不牽涉任何事實問題。

同Dissenting Opinions的理由，被告上訴至最高法院(理由為CAFC不應對請求項建構做重新審查)，但當時最高法院拒絕調閱本案。

(Mayer法官的見解在 2015 年的Teva案中得到回應，最高法院說明CAFC只有在地院有明顯錯誤(clear error)的情況下才可推翻下級法院的事實認定。)

  1. “Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part. Autogiro, 384 F.2d at 397, 155 USPQ at 702; see Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 338; Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. at 38-39. The specification contains a written description of the invention that must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441, 164 USPQ 619, 621 (CCPA 1970) (“Occasionally the disclosure will serve as a dictionary for terms appearing in the claims, and in such instances the disclosure may be used in interpreting the coverage of the claim.”). As we have often stated, a patentee is free to be his own lexicographer. Autogiro, 384 F.2d at 397, 155 USPQ at 702. The caveat is that any special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1992). The written description part of the specification itself does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and purpose of claims. To construe claim language, the court should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 33, 86 S.Ct. 684, 701, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 USPQ 459, 473 (1966). This “undisputed public record” of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office is of primary significance in understanding the claims. See Autogiro, 384 F.2d at 397, 155 USPQ at 702 (the “file wrapper” is “part[ ] of the patent”). The court has broad power to look as a matter of law to the prosecution history of the patent in order to ascertain the true meaning of language used in the patent claims:“
  2. “Thus, the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.   Usually, it is dispositive;  it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.“
  3. “We have viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms,”
  4. “The sequence of steps used by the judge in consulting various sources is not important; what matters is for the court to attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those sources in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law. “
  5. “To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims, it is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so.“
  6. “Yet because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.“
  7. “While we have acknowledged the maxim that claims should be construed to preserve their validity, we have not applied that principle broadly, and we have certainly not endorsed a regime in which validity analysis is a regular component of claim construction.“
  8. “Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms. See Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For example, [Page 1315] the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).“
  9. “One of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention is to provide an example of how to practice the invention in a particular case. Much of the time, upon reading the specification in that context, it will become clear whether the patentee is setting out specific examples of the invention to accomplish those goals, or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive. See SciMed Life Sys., 242 F.3d at 1341. The manner in which the patentee uses a term within the specification and claims usually will make the distinction apparent.“

本文作者為 袁如陵專利師。