HTC申請USITC調查Apple產品侵害HTC撥號器以及電力管理專利一案(337-TA-721)，ITC ALJ在Oct, 17, 2011作成初判，之後HTC對電力管理專利提出部分上訴，The Commission (以下稱“委員會”)在April, 19, 2012作成決議維持原判決。本文摘譯初判以及復審意見書菁華，以供有興趣者參考。
初審意見書內容包括有案情介紹、管轄權、相關法律、The Dialer Patents、The '800 Patent、The'505patent、法律結論與初步決定等，復審意見書則包括背景介紹、Violation And The '800 Patent、以及結論，其中初審意見書的案情介紹、管轄權、與相關法律相當常見，建議熟悉相關法律的讀者可以略過。初審意見書在討論各專利章節中也有討論專利有效性問題，ALJ有時提到Apple似乎是匆促完成其文件，所以這部分相對參考價值比較低，因此，本文著重於法官與委員會就文義侵害如何認事用法的部分，以利讀者瞭解Apple如何全身而退，進階的讀者如對對本案均等論討論有興趣者，請自行查閱原文後續章節。
其中撥號器專利部分是擷取初審意見書page 14-31，而電力管理專利部分(The '800 Patent)是以復審意見書page8-18內容進行摘譯。參考文件是公眾版文件，因為機密保護問題而有許多空白，譯者以[[]]代表，請注意[[]]或短或長，短者可能只是一詞彙，長者描述商業機密用法幾乎可達一頁，請勿誤認每一[[]]都是一詞彙，再者，原文中有許多法律標註用詞，其用途是為了引導查閱佐證文件，雖然我們沒有佐證文件可以提供給大家，但是因為該些標註仍有部分參考引導作用，所以摘錄原文部分的這些法律標註用詞予以保留，對應的摘譯文則略去這些法律標註，請讀者知悉。此外，為方便讀者理解，譯者有插入部分專利說明書文字與圖，該些段落以星號表示開始與終止。
最後，提醒讀者，翻譯文章難免疏露，請多參酌原文，一切以原文為準。
一、撥號器專利 (初審意見書pages 14-31)
THE DIALER PATENTS
| Claim |
Term |
(ALJ ) Construction |
ALJ法官裁定 |
Claim 1 ('988);
Claim 8 ('957) |
Pages
頁面(複數) |
more than one page
多於一頁面 |
|
Claim 1 ('988);
Claim 8 ('957) |
discrete pages
分離頁面 |
separate pages
分開頁面 |
|
Claim 1 ('988);
Claim 8 ('957) |
Keypad |
data input device in which the keys are arranged in a manner similar to the numbers on a standard pushbutton telephone
資料輸入裝置, 其中的按鍵係以類似於在標準按鈕電話上面的數字的方式排列 |
the accused products, at a minimum, do not practice the "keypad," "manually operable selector," and "manually operable scanning device" limitations and thus, do not literally infringe either claim 1 of the '988 patent or claim 8 of the '957 patent.
ALJ認定被訴產品，並未實施 "keypad"、"可手動操作選擇器"、以及"可手動操作掃描裝置"限制，因此並未文義侵害 '988專利第一權利項或 '957專利第八權利項.
i) a keypad to generate a sequence of indicia corresponding to a telephone number"
Asserted claim 1 of the '988 patent and asserted claim 8 of the '957 patent each recite "a keypad to generate a sequence of indicia corresponding to a telephone number," which has been construed to mean "a data input device in which the keys are arranged in a manner similar to the numbers on a standard pushbutton telephone."
HTC主張的 '988專利第一權利項或 '957專利第八權利項各誦記"一個keypad用以產生一個序列的標誌對應至一個電話號碼"，此項已被釋義為"一個資料輸入裝置，其中的按鍵係以類似於在標準按鈕電話上面的數字的方式排列
"The undersigned agrees with HTC and Staff that the evidence demonstrates the accused products are capable of displaying different virtual keypads that allow for input of data. For example, the accused iPhone products are able to display the following different keypads:
行政法官ALJ贊同HTC and Staff，證據顯示被訴產品能夠顯示數種虛擬keypads可供資料輸入，例如被訴產品能夠顯示下列數種不同 keypads。
Of those various keyboards, only two are "keypad(s)" as that term has been construed by the undersigned.' Specifically, only the [[]] and the [[]] keypad have "keys arranged in a manner similar to the numbers on a standard pushbutton telephone."
在這些各式各樣的keyboards中，因為該詞彙已被行政法官ALJ釋義，只有兩種是 "keypad(s)"，明確地說，只有[[]]與[[]]keypad有"按鍵係以類似於在標準按鈕電話上面的數字的方式排列" (譯者按：此段反面解釋就是，被訴產品輸入字母的虛擬鍵盤是keyboard不是keypad，所以被排除討論文義侵害)
These keypads, however, are only capable of entering numbers. (See, e.g., CX-23 at 27 (stating that the phone and numerical keyboards offer different layouts that are tailored towards numerical input); RX-808C at Q/A 33-34,69-75; Wobbrock, Tr. at 824:20-825: 18, 884:23-885:lO; Aybes, Tr. at 1021:4-25, 1025:2-24; Nieh, Tr. at 1 176:3-23, 1 177:6-15] [[]] The crux of the dispute, therefore, is whether a keypad that can only be used to enter a telephone number satisfies the limitation of a "keypad to generate a sequence of indicia corresponding to a telephone number."
然而, 這些 keypads只能輸入數字。[[]]爭議關鍵在於，一個只能被用來輸入數字的keypad，可否符合要項"一個keypad用以產生一個序列的標誌對應至一個電話號碼"。
Apple's arguments persuasive. The key language here is "corresponding to a telephone number." This language requires some indicia that corresponds to a telephone number, and as both Apple and Staff correctly noted, a telephone number cannot correspond to itself. The claimed keypad must thus be capable of entering alphabetic characters, as well as numbers. The specification supports this conclusion for it explains that the claimed "keypad" is used for entering "both letters for the name and digits for the number into a telephone directory's memory." In addition, as other claims of the '957 patent demonstrate, when the patentee intended a claim term to mean "a telephone number," the claim recites a "telephone number'' and not the phrase "a sequence of indicia corresponding to a telephone number." Thus, in the undersigned's view, how the inventor chose to claim his invention clearly indicates that the claimed "keypad" is one that can enter letter &sg numbers. Because neither the [ ] keypad nor the [ ] keypad is capable of entering alphabetic characters, HTC has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Apple's accused products satisfy the "a keypad to generate a sequence of indicia corresponding to a telephone number" limitation of claim 1 of the '988 patent and claim 8 of the '957 patent.
行政法官ALJ認為Staffs and Apple's論點有說服力，在此的關鍵字是"對應至一個電話號碼"，這文字需要一些標記對應至一個電話號碼"，如同Apple and Staff 正確的注釋，一個電話號碼不能對應到自身。宣告的keypad因此必須有能力輸入字母以及數字，專利說明書規格一節支持這一結論，因為它解釋宣告的"keypad"被使用以輸入"名字字母以及數字位元到電話目錄的記載體”，此外，如同'957專利其他權利項示範，當專利權人用一個詞彙去表示“一個電話號碼”時，權利宣告會誦記一個“電話號碼”，而不是"一個序列的標誌對應至一個電話號碼"，因此，以行政法官ALJ的看法，發明人選擇如何宣告他的發明清楚地表明，被宣告的keypad可輸入字母以及數字。因為 [[] ] keypad以及 [[ ]] keypad都不能輸入字母，HTC未能以優勢證據證明，蘋果的被訴產品，符合 '988 專利第一權利項或 '957 專利第八權利項中的要項"一個keypad用以產生一個序列的標誌對應至一個電話號碼"。
|
Claim 1 ('988);
Claim 8 ('957) |
Page
頁面 |
a collection of information from a telephone directory
一個資訊集合來自一個電話目錄 |
|
| Claim 1 ('988) |
to scan indicia of said
selected page on said
display
以掃瞄在前述顯示器上面前述被選取頁面的標記 |
to look through the telephone directory entries that are stored in the selected page that is displayed
瀏覽電話目錄的條目，而該條目是儲存在被選取而顯示的頁面 |
|
| Claim 8 ('957) |
to control the scanning of indica [sic] of said
selected page on said
electronic display device |
to control the display of the telephone directory entries that are stored in the selected page |
|
| Claim 1 ('988) |
manually operable
scanning device
可手動操作掃描裝置 |
a sliding or rotary-type control used to choose information on a particular page
一個滑動或旋轉式控制，用來選擇一個特定的頁面上的資訊 |
ii) "a manually operable scanning device to scan indicia on said selected page on said display/a manually operable scanning control device to control the scanning of indica [sic] of said selected page on said electronic display device"
Claim 1 of the '988 patent recites a "manually operable scanning device," while claim 8 of the '957 patent recites a "manually operable scanning control device." (JX-3 at 9: 15-16; JX-4at 10:2 1-23.) The undersigned has construed "manually operable scanning device" as "a sliding or rotary-type control used to choose information on a particular page," and the corresponding limitation in the '957 patent as "a sliding or rotary-type control used to look through information in a chosen page.''
'988專利第一權利項誦記一個"可手動操作掃描裝置"，而 '957專利第八權利項誦記一個"可手動操作掃描控制裝置"，行政法官ALJ已經將"可手動操作掃描裝置"釋義為"一個滑動或旋轉式控制，用來選擇一個特定的頁面上的資訊"，而 '957專利對應的要項為"一個滑動或旋轉式控制，用來瀏覽在一個選定頁面上資訊"。
The undersigned agrees with Apple and Staff, finding the evidence shows that the accused products do not employ any sliding or rotary-type controls that would allow a user to choose information on a page. Nevertheless, Dr. Wobbrock, HTC's expert, claims that the capacitive touch screen is the "manually operable scanning device." (CX-1407.3C at Q/A 145 ("These scanning devices are a combination of hardware and software. This is a capacitive touch screen. When a user slides a finger across the touch screen, it moves a capacitance well. As the capacitance well slides, the displayed indicia move accordingly. Scanning causes new entries to appear on the display. The user can scan up and down, quickly or slowly. This is a sliding-type control.").) The undersigned finds Dr. Wobbrock's argument unpersuasive for the touchscreen is neither moveable nor does it deflect. In fact, the evidence shows that the touch screen structure of, at least, the accused iPhone products is [ 1(RX-3 19C at 13; RX-808C at Q/A 32,94-105, 107, 1 14; RX-803C at Q/A 12,29-3 1 ; Wobbrock, Tr. at 779:2-5 ([] 797: 16-20 ([],828:4-11 ("Q.] Parivar, Tr. at 1041:lO-14, 1046:12-22 [] Nieh, Tr, at 1161:3-1162:l [(RX-3 19 at 12-1 3,21,66,78, Figs. 2 & 1 1 (demonstrating that …….)
行政法官ALJ贊同Apple and Staff，認定證據顯示被訴產品並未使用任何滑動或旋轉式控制，可供使用者選擇在一個頁面上面的資訊。然而，HTC的專家 Dr. Wobbrock聲言，電容式觸摸屏就是"可手動操作掃描裝置"( "這些掃描裝置是硬件和軟件的組合。這是一個電容式觸摸屏。當使用者滑動手指跨越觸摸屏，它移動了一個電容井，當這電容井滑動時，被顯示的標記相應移動。掃描會導致新的條目出現在顯示屏上。用戶可以往上或往下掃描，或快或慢。這是一個滑動式控制“）。行政法官ALJ認為Dr. Wobbrock的說法沒有說服力，因為觸摸屏既不是可移動的，也不偏移。
Furthermore, under HTC's position, the "sliding control" would be reinterpreted to mean "control by sliding." (See CIB at 104.) As both Apple and Staff correctly noted, by interpreting "sliding control" to mean "control by sliding," HTC has incorrectly changed the meaning of the undersigned's claim construction from a noun (i. e., a sliding-type of control that is part of the telephone dialer) to a verb (i.e., control by sliding a finger). Contrary to HTC's assertion, Order No. 29 does require the claimed "manually operable scanning device" to be a sliding part of a telephone dialer or, in other words, physically moveable by the user. (JX-3 at 2: 1 - 10,5: 16-2 1, 5:34-36, 7:24-28, Fig. 8; see also Order No. 29 at 78-79,89-90.) The specification confirms that the claimed 'manually operable scanning device" must "move," stating:
更甚者，根據HTC的立場，“滑動控制”將被重新詮釋以意指“藉滑動以控制”。如同Apple and Staff都正確地指出，藉由詮釋"滑動控制”意指“藉滑動以控制”，HTC已經不正確的改變了行政法官ALJ所做的釋義意思，從一個名詞(意即，一個滑動式控制，係為撥號器的一部分)變成一個動詞(意即，藉滑動手指以控制)。與HTC的說法相反，第29號命令的確要求所宣告的“可手動操作掃描裝置”為一個撥號器的一個滑動件，換句話說，可被使用者實體移動的。專利說明書規格一節規範確認所宣告的“可手動操作掃描裝置”必須“移動”。
Because the accused products lack a physical moveable "sliding-type control," they do not infringe the Dialer Patents. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that HTC has failed to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the "manually operable scanning device" limitation of claim of the '988 patent or the "manually operable scanning control device" limitation of claim 8 of the '957 patent is literally met by the accused products.
因為被訴產品缺乏一個實體可移動的"滑動式控制"，它們並未侵害撥號器專利，因此，行政法官ALJ認定HTC未能以優勢證據證明，被訴產品文義符合 '988專利的“可手動操作掃描裝置”要項或 '957專利的“手動操作掃描控制裝置”限制。
|
| Claim 8 ('957) |
manually operable
scanning control device
可手動操作掃描控制裝置 |
a sliding or rotary-type control used to look through information on a chosen page
一個滑動或旋轉式控制，用來瀏覽在一個選定頁面上資訊 |
|
Claims 1, 10 ('988);
Claims 8, 9 ('957) |
page selection device
頁面選擇裝置 |
a push button or other discrete part used to select a page
一個按紐或者其他分離部件，用以選擇一個頁面 |
|
| Claim 10 ('988) |
page and inside page
address selector devices
頁面以及內頁位址選擇器裝置 |
a push button or other physical part used to select a page and a sliding or rotary type control used to choose information on a particular page
一個按紐或者其他實體部件，用以選擇一頁面以及一個滑動或旋轉式控制，用來選擇一個特定的頁面上的資訊 |
|
Claim 1 ('988);
Claim 8 ('957) |
manually operable
selector
可手動操作選擇器 |
a part moveable by hand used [to select]
一個可用手移動部件被使用[以選擇] |
iii) "a manually operable selector to select one of said indicia on said display for dialing"
Claim 1 of the '988 patent and claim 8 of the '957 patent each recite a “manually operable selector." (JX-3 at 9: 16- 1 8; JX-4 at 10:29-30.) The undersigned construed this term to be "a part moveable by hand used [to select]" - with the bracketed "to select" referring to the balance of the claim limitation, namely "to select one of said indicia on said display for dialing." (Order No. 29 at 103.)
'988專利第一權利項或 '957專利第八權利項各誦記一個“可手動操作選擇器”，行政法官ALJ解釋這詞彙為“一個可用手移動部件被使用[以選擇]”，框號內“以選擇”指權利項限制的剩餘文字，也就是 “用以在前述顯示器上選擇前述標誌之一以供撥號”。
The undersigned similarly finds that user interface elements such as virtual buttons also fail to satisfy the claim requirement of being "a part moveable by hand" for a virtual button is nothing more than an image, and an image displayed on the capacitive touchscreen is not a part moveable by hand. (RX-808C at Q/A 122-123.) Because this limitation is not met by the accused products, HTC has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple's accused products literally infringe claim 1 of the '988 patent or claim 8 of the '957 patent.
行政法官ALJ同樣地認定使用者介面元件如虛擬按鈕也不符合係“一個可用手移動部件” 的該權利項要求，因為一個虛擬按鈕無非是一個圖像，而且電容式觸摸屏上顯示的圖像不是一個可用手移動部件。因為這項限制未被被訴產品符合， HTC未能以優勢證據證明，Apple被訴產品文義符合 '988專利第一權利項或 '957專利第八權利項。
|
二、 '800 PATENT (複審意見書pages 8-18)
VIOLATION AND THE '800 PATENT UNDER REVIEW
As discussed above, the Commission determined to review the ID’s findings with respect to ‘800 patent in its entirety. Asserted independent claim 1 recites (the elements have been labeled for discussion purposes):
1. A method for power management of a smart phone having a power system, a mobile phone system operated in standby, sleep, connection or off mode, and a PDA system operated in a normal, sleep or off mode, the method comprising steps of:
一種智慧型手機電力管理之方法，該智慧型手機具有一個電力系統，一個手機系統運作在待機、休眠、連線或關機模式，以及一個個人數位助理系統運作在一個正常、休眠或關機模式，該方法包括步驟如下：
resetting the smart phone; [element 1a]
重設該智慧型手機；
searching for network service for the mobile phone system; [element 1b]
為該手機系統搜尋網路服務;
operating the mobile phone system in standby mode and the PDA system in normal mode when the network is located and connected to; [element 1c]
當網路被定位與連接至的時候，以待機模式運作該手機系統，以正常模式運作該個人數位助理系統;
switching the mobile phone system from standby mode to connection mode when establishing communication with a remote terminal of the network;[element 1d]
當與網路的一個遠端建立通話時，使該手機系統由待機模式切入連線模式;
switching the mobile phone system from standby mode to sleep mode when the mobile phone system has been idle for a first period of time; [element 1e]
當該手機系統閒置一第一時間時，使該手機系統由待機模式切入休眠模式;
switching the PDA system from normal mode to sleep mode when the PDA system has been idle for a second period of time; and [element 1f]
當該個人數位助理系統閒置一第二時間時，使該個人數位助理系統由正常模式切入休眠模式；以及
implementing a power detection method comprising steps of:[element 1g]
執行一電力偵測方法，包括步驟如下:
detecting an amount of power of a source in the power system; [element 1g1]
偵測在該電力系統一個電源的一電力的數量;
switching the mobile phone system to off mode when the detected amount is less than a first threshold; and [element 1g2]
當該偵測得數量小於一第一臨限時，使該手機系統切入關機模式；以及
switching the PDA system to off mode when the detected amount is less than a second threshold.[element 1g3]
當該偵測得數量小於一第二臨限時，使該個人數位助理系統切入關機模式。
(翻譯文字係參酌對應中華民國專利 203414權利項修改而成)
The ALJ’s final ID only addressed whether complainant had established that the Accused Devices met the limitations in element 1f and the power detection elements of 1g (1g1 to 1g3) of claim 1 above; having found that these elements were not shown, the ID did not address the other elements of claim 1. Our discussion below addresses these elements of claim 1; the Commission finds that, while element 1f is met, the power detection elements of 1g are not, and thus the Commission affirms the ALJ’s conclusion that complainant has not established infringement of claim 1 of the ’800 patent. The Commission declines to take a position on the remaining elements of claim 1.
行政法官的最終初判只有說明是否原告已建立被訴產品符合第一權利項在要件1f以及在電力偵測要件1g(1g1至1g3)的限制，已判定這些要件未被符合，初判書並未著墨於第一權利項其他要件。我們以下的討論將針對第一權利項的該些要件，委員會認為雖然要件1f被符合，電力偵測要件1g不被符合，因此委員會維持行政法官的結論，原告未能建立 ’800專利第一權利項的侵權，委員會婉拒對第一權利項的其他要件決定立場。
A. Whether Element 1f of Claim 1 of the '800 Patent is Met By the Accused iPhones
Our determination of whether or not element 1f is met rests on the determination of what constitutes a “sleep mode” and what constitutes an “off mode.” The ALJ construed “sleep mode” in element 1f to mean “an operational mode in which the amount of power supplied to the subsystem is less than any mode except for off mode” and “off mode” to mean “an operational mode in which the least amount of power is supplied to the subsystem compared to any other operational mode (e.g., normal, sleep, connection, or standby)." Id. at 22, 26. HTC did not challenge the ALJ's claim constructions of “sleep mode” or “off mode” but rather the application of these terms. In finding that the Accused iPhones do not meet this limitation, the ALJ found that [[]] ID at 58-59. Thus the ALJ found that [[]] as advocated by HTC, is the mode in which “the amount of power supplied to the subsystem is less than any made except for off mode.”
我們關於要件1f有無被符合的決定，繫於什麼構成一"休眠模式"以及什麼構成一"關機模式"的決定，該行政法官釋義，在要件1f的"休眠模式"意指"一種操作模式，其中供應至該次系統的電力的數量，是小於除了關機模式以外任何模式"，而"關機模式"意指"一種操作模式，其中與其他任何操作模式(如正常、休眠、連線、或待機)相比，最小數量的電力被供應至該次系統”，HTC並未挑戰該行政法官的"休眠模式"或"關機模式"權利項釋義，而是挑戰這些詞彙的應用。在認定被訴的iPhones不符合這限制，該行政法官判定[[]]，因此該行政法官判定HTC所主張[[]]，是一種模式，其中“供應至該次系統的電力的數量，是小於除了關機模式以外任何模式”。
In contrast to the ALJ's finding, the parties agree, and the Commission finds, that the evidence shows that the [[]] See e.g., HTC Br. at Apple Br. at 5-11; Alpert Tr, at 1453:10-145433, 1455:?-145624; For example, Dr. Alpert, App1e’s expert, who qualified his testimony for when the AP PMU is not part of the PDA system, testified as follows: [[]] Alpert, Tr. at 1456:11-21; see also RX-807.1C at Q. 280' Dr. Williams, HTC’s expert, testified as follows: [[]] CX-1405.2C at Q. 157; see also Williains, Tr. 415 :—430:5, 429:5-430:5, 434:22~435:2. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that the [[]] Because the [[]] are the operational modes in which the least amount of power is supplied to the PDA system, [[]] meet the ALJ's conclusion of “off mode.” The [[]] is the next lowest power mode that is supplied power and therefore satisfies the ALJ's construction for “sleep mode,” which is “an operational mode in which the amount of power supplied to the subsystem is less than any mode except for off mode.” Markman Order at 26 (emphasis added); see e.g., Alpert, Tr. 1450:12-16; 1453110-1454:3, 145527-1456:24; Williams, T1415:-430:5, 429:5-430:5, 434122-435:2, 44():21~441:5; CX—1405.2C at Q. 157, 254, 536, 539, 54849, 959, 962, 971'72, 1383, 1386, 1395~96, 1811,1814, 1823~24, 2250, 2253, 2262; RX-80'7.1C at Q. 233, 280; RX-806C at Q55, '76, 99; Conner, Tr. 1318:16-1319:21; see also HTC Br.‘ at 7-8; Apple Br. at 5-11. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the [[]] of the Accused iPhones meets the “sleep mode” limitation of element 1f. Accordingly, the Commission reverses the ALJ's finding that the Accused iPhones do not meet this element.
相反於該行政法官的認定，各方同意，且委員會認定，該證據顯示[[]]。例如，Dr. Alpert, App1e’s 專家，就the AP PMU不是該個人數位助理系統的部份的情形下他核可他的證詞，做證說明如下[[]]。所以，證據支持一認定[[]]，因為該[[]]是該操作模式，其中最小數量的電力被供應至個人數位助理系統，[[]]符合該行政法官的"關機模式"的結論。該[[]] 是次低電力模式被供應電力而因此滿足該行政法官為"休眠模式"的釋義，其為"一種操作模式，其中供應至該次系統的電力的數量，是小於除了關機模式以外任何模式"。因此，一優勢證據支持這認定，the [[]] of the Accused iPhones符合要件1f"休眠模式"限制。基如上述，委員會推翻該行政法官關於the Accused iPhones不符合這要項的認定。
B. Whether the “Implementing a Power Detection Method Comprising Steps of” (Element 1g) “Detecting an Amount of Power of a Source in a Power System” (Element 1g1); “Switching the Mobile Phone System to Off Mode When the Detected Amount is Less Than a First Threshold” (Element 1g2); and “Switching the PDA System to Off Mode When the Detected Amount is Less Than a Second Threshold” (Element 1g3) Limitations Are Met by the Accused iPhones and Practiced by the HTC DI Products
1. Infringement
The ALJ correctly found that HTC has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Accused iPhones meet the steps of the “implementing a power detection method” limitation (element 1g). The Commission finds that the Accused iPhones have [[]], and therefore, the Accused iPhones do not meet this limitation. In addition, the Commission finds that the [[]] and therefore, the Accused iPhones do not have separately set thresholds. Accordingly, the Commission affirms the ALJ's determination of no infringement for these claim elements.
ALJ正確的判斷HTC未能以優勢證據證明，被訴的iPhones符合"執行一電力偵測方法"步驟之限制(要項 1g)。委員會認為被訴的iPhones有[[]]，因此，被訴的iPhone不符合此限制。此外，委員會認定[[]]，因此，被訴的iPhones沒有分別設定的臨限。因此，委員會維持行政法官的不侵權這些權利要項的決定。
The ALJ found that:“[t]he claim construction requires that the MPS be switched to off mode when ‘the detected amount of power in the power source is less than a first value’ and the PDA system be switched to off mode when ‘the detected amount of power in the power source is less than a second value,’ provided that ‘the values of the first and second thresholds may be the same or different, and must be separately set.’” ID at 61. The ALJ also determined that “while the first and second thresholds can be the same or different, the ‘detected amount’ that is compared to the first threshold is the same as the ‘detected amount’ that is compared to the second threshold.” Id. The ALJ concluded that the “detected amount” limitation is not met in the Accused iPhones because [[]] Id. The Commission agrees with his claim construction and this analysis of the Accused iPhones.
行政法官判定：權利項的釋義要求，當在該電源偵測得數量小於一第一值時，the MPS被切換至關機模式，以及當在該電源偵測得數量小於一第二值時，the PDA system 被切換至關機模式，條件是“第一和第二臨限的值可能相同或相異，並且必須被分別設定”。行政法官也決定，“當第一和第二臨限可相同或相異，與第一臨限比較的該‘偵測得數量’是相同於與第二臨限比較的該‘偵測得數量’”，行政法官作成結論，該‘偵測得數量’限制沒有被被訴的iPhones符合，因為[[]]，委員會贊同他的權利項釋義和被訴iPhones的分析。
The claims recite four elements that relate to the detection of power (i.e., 1g, 1g1, 1g2, and 1g3). The “power detection method” of “detecting an amount of power of a source” provides the antecedent basis for “the detected amount” recited in claim elements 1g2 and 1g3 and indicates that one detected amount is compared to both the first and second thresholds. Further, Figure 10 of the specification illustrates a detection and comparison method of the invention that shows that during any iteration of the method of Figure 10, the amount detected in step 101 is compared to both thresholds. JX-1, '800 patent at Fig. 10. Thus, the plain language of the claim and the specification support the ALJ's finding that one detected amount of power is compared to the first and second thresholds.
權利項誦記四項與電力偵測關連的要件，"偵測一電源的一電力的數量"的"電力偵測方法"提供了先例基礎，給在權利項 1g2與1g3 要件的該‘偵測得數量’，並且表示一個偵測得數量被用來與第一和第二臨限比較，再者，專利說明書規格章節的圖10例示本發明之一偵測與比較方法，它顯示出在圖10本方法的任何循環，在步驟101偵測得數量被用來與兩個臨限比較。因此，權利項明白的語言以及該規格支持行政法官的裁定，一個偵測得電力數量被用來與第一和第二臨限二者進行比較。
*********[專利說明書Fig10例示本發明之一偵測與比較方法] *********
*********[專利說明書Fig10例示本發明之一偵測與比較方法] *********
In determining whether or not there was more than one power detection amount compared to the thresholds in the Accused iPhones, the ALJ relied upon testimony from App1e's expert witness, Dr. Alpert, who testified as follows:[[]] RX-80'/.1C at Q. 250, 275. 9 Dr. Williams testified that the PDA system and mobile phone systems [[]] See e. g.,CX-1405.2C Q. 56793, 990-1016, 1413-46, 1842-76, 2280-2313. This evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that the [[]] Accordingly, the Commission finds that the ALJ properly determined that the Accused iPhones do not compare one detected amount to both the first and second thresholds, as required by these claim limitations.
在決定被訴iPhones是否有多個電力偵測數量被用來與該些臨限比較時，行政法官是依據Apple專家證人證詞，[略]，因此，委員會認定行政法官正確地決定，被訴的iPhone並非以一個偵測得數量來與第一和第二臨限二者進行比較如同這些權利項的限制所要求者。
As noted above, the Commission also finds that the ALJ properly determined that the Accused iPhones do not have “separately set” first and second thresholds because [[]] One of the parties’ significant disagreements for the 1g limitations rests on whether or not the '800 patent allows for the mobile phone and PDA systems to both turn off based on a single threshold. In reviewing the claims, specification, and the parties’ arguments, the Commission finds that the ALJ correctly determined that both the PDA and mobile phone systems cannot be turned off when a single threshold is met and still meet the limitations of claim 1. The Commission adopts his reasoning and adds the following analysis.
如同先前註記，委員會也認定行政法官正確地決定，被訴的iPhone並沒有分開設定的第一和第二臨限，因為[[]]，雙方對於1g限制的重大歧見之一在於，是否'800專利允許該手機系統與該個人數位助理系統二者根據一單一臨限進行關閉，在回顧了該些權利項、規格、以及雙方論點，委員會認定行政法官正確地決定，該手機系統與該個人數位助理系統二者不可在當一單一臨限符合時進行關閉，而仍然符合權利項1的限制，委員會採納了ALJ的論理，並增加了以下的分析。
First, the plain reading of the claim language requires that there be a one-to-one correspondence between the specified system and the specified threshold. Specifically, the claim language requires that the mobile phone system turn to “off mode” when the amount detected is less than a first threshold; and that the PDA turn to “off mode” when the amount detected is less than a second threshold. The ALJ's claim construction requires that the two thresholds be separately set for the PDA and mobile phone systems. Markman Order at 27. The plain reading of the claim is consistent with the ALJ’s construction.
首先，權利項語言的明確讀法，要求在指定系統與指定的臨限之間有一個一對一的對應。具體來說，權利項語言要求，當偵測得數量小於一第一臨限時，該手機系統轉至關機模式，以及當偵測得數量小於一第二臨限時，該個人數位助理系統轉至關機模式，行政法官的權利項釋義要求這兩個臨限分別地為該個人數位助理系統以及該手機系統設定。權利項的明確讀法與行政法官的釋義一致。
The Background of the Invention teaches that the advantage of the invention is the ability to use one system (e.g. , PDA system) while conserving power in the other system (e.g., mobile phone system) by separately managing the power operations. JX-1, ’800 patent at 1:22-32. The Abstract is also consistent with the plain meaning of the claim. The Abstract recites “implementing power detection to switch the mobile phone and PDA systems to off mode when the detected power is lower than a first and second threshold respectively.” Id. at Abstract (emphasis added). The plain meaning of the word “respectively” is that the PDA and mobile phone systems have separate thresholds that are separately used to power off the mobile phone and PDA systems.
該發明的背景教導說該發明的優點是，藉由分別管理該些電力運作，當在其他系統(例如手機系統)保存電力的同時，可使用一個系統(例如個人數位助理系統)的能力。該摘要也與該權利項明白的意思一致，該摘要誦記“執行電力偵測，當該偵測得數量小於一第一臨限與第二臨限個別地使該手機系統與該個人數位助理系統切入關機模式”，“個別地”這個字的明白意思是，該個人數位助理系統與手機系統有分別臨限，被分別用來關閉該手機系統與個人數位助理系統。
Contrary to HTC’s contention, the specification does not teach that the flowchart of Figure 10 results in turning off both the PDA and mobile phone system when the detected amount is less than one of the two specified thresholds. Instead, Figure 10 shows a detected amount is compared to the second threshold and if that threshold is not met, the detected amount is compared to the first threshold. There is no evidence from Figure 10 or the specification that supports HTC’s position both systems turn off as a result of either threshold being met. For these reasons, the Commission agrees with the ALI’s determination that both systems cannot be turned off when one threshold is met.
與HTC主張相反，專利說明書規格並未教導說，圖10的流程圖導致，當該偵測得數量小二個指定臨限之一時，關閉該個人數位助理系統與手機系統二者。相反地，圖10顯示一個偵測得數量被與該第二臨限相比，如果不符合該臨限，該偵測得數量被與該第一臨限相比，從圖10或該專利說明書規格沒有證據支持HTC的立場，任一臨限被符合的結果是二系統都關閉，基於這些理由，委員會贊同行政法官決定，當一臨限被符合時，二系統不可都被關閉。
[此些段落因為空白過多無法確知內容，予以省略]
As discussed above for element 1f, the [[]] modes both satisfy the ALJ's construction of “off mode,” in as much as they both constitute an operational mode where the least amount of power is supplied to the PDA system. Therefore, when the [[]] The fact that the PDA system [[]] does not change the fact that when the [[]] Nothing in the claims precludes one or both of the systems from later being turned back on. Accordingly, elements 1g2 and 1g3 are not met by the Accused iPhones because the first and second thresholds are not separately set.
如同上面為要件1f討論的，該[[]]模式都符合行政法官關機模式的釋義，在於他們都構成一操作模式，其中最小數量的電力被供應至個人數位助理系統，因此，[略]該個人數位助理系統[[]]的事實並未改變當該[[]]的事實。在權利項中沒有任何東西排除一個或二個系統稍後被重啟開。基於上述，要件1g2與1g3並未被被訴的iphones符合，因為該第一與第二臨限不是被分別設定。
HTC Corp. v. Apple Inc.
Case No. 337-TA-721
ALJ’s Initial Determination
&
Commission Opinion
本案件結論：
雖然Apple被訴產品符合系爭專利的多數的要項，但是HTC未能以證據優勢(preponderance of the evidence)證明符合各專利的全部要項，所以依據全要項法則，判定Apple被訴產品並未文義侵權，同時均等論主張也不成立，ALJ與Commission相繼做出不侵權判決。
- Apple被訴產品缺乏一個實體可移動的“滑動式控制 (sliding-type control )”，它們並未侵害撥號器專利，因此，行政法官ALJ認定HTC未能以證據優勢證明，被訴產品文義符合 ‘988專利的“可手動操作掃描裝置(manually operable scanning device)”要項或 ’957專利的“手動操作掃描控制裝置(manually operable scanning control device)”限制。
- 行政法官ALJ同樣地認定使用者介面元件如虛擬按鈕也不符合係“一個可用手移動部件(a part moveable by hand)”的該權利項要求，因為一個虛擬按鈕無非是一個圖像，而且電容式觸摸屏上顯示的圖像不是一個可用手移動部件。因為這項限制未被被訴產品符合， HTC未能以證據優勢證明，Apple被訴產品文義符合 '988專利第一權利項或 '957專利第八權利項。
- ALJ正確的判斷HTC未能以證據優勢證明，被訴的iPhones符合"執行一電力偵測方法(a power detection method )"步驟之限制(要項 1g)。委員會認為被訴的iPhones有[[]]，因此，被訴的iPhone不符合此限制。此外，委員會認定[[]]，因此，被訴的iPhones沒有分別設定的臨限。因此，委員會維持行政法官的不侵權這些權利要項的決定。
- 委員會推翻行政法官關於休眠模式要項的認定
在系爭專利800針對次低電力模式被供應電力而因此滿足該行政法官為"休眠模式(sleep mode )"的釋義，其為"一種操作模式，其中供應至該次系統的電力的數量，是小於除了關機模式以外任何模式 (an operational mode in which the amount of power supplied to the subsystem is less than any mode except for off mode )"。因此，一證據優勢支持這認定，the [[]] of the Accused iPhones符合要件1f"休眠模式"限制。基如上述，委員會推翻該行政法官關於the Accused iPhones不符合這要項的認定。但依據全要項法則，Commission做出不侵權判決。
|
本研究對於初判看法：
雖然Apple被訴產品符合系爭專利的多數的要項，卻判定Apple被訴產品未侵權成立。必須從系爭專利800申請過程的File Wrapper來看，該系爭專利800在申請過程被專利審查官要求增加”下位語”，而增加過多”下位語” (1a, 1b,1c, 1f, 1g….)造成必須所有”下位語”成立後，侵權條件才成立。主要原因為，台灣廠商是追隨者角色，往往主要關鍵專利(上位語)早就被申請了。台廠僅能取得改良型專利 (下位語)。
|
檔案下載：
蘋果不侵權 (初判正式版本)
蘋果不侵權 (終判2012.2.17)
HTC上訴主動撤回(2012.06.13)
(9915字；圖1)
(本文作者任職於環隆電氣智權部，美國密西根州律師，中華民國專利代理人)