認真做專利 希望所有的專利工程師 都能認真做專利

21愛的鼓勵 0訂閱站台

台灣的公司在美國境外製造產品

輾轉銷售到美國境內

是否會有美國專利侵權的問題呢?

以下判例可以作為參考

 

CAFC 2005 MEMC vs. SUMCO

 

MEMC是矽晶圓的供應商，也是US 5919302專利的專利權人

SUMCO位於日本，也是矽晶圓的供應商

SUMCO獲得韓國三星的授權製造矽晶圓

日本三星向SUMCO下單後，SUMCO在日本製造

日本三星再賣給奧斯丁三星

It is undisputed that SUMCO’s silicon wafers are manufactured exclusively outside of the United States at SUMCO’s manufacturing plant in Yonezawa, Japan. Ostensibly, SUMCO sells silicon wafers to Samsung Japan Corporation (“Samsung Japan”), which then sells the wafers to Samsung Austin Semiconductor, located in Austin, Texas (“Samsung Austin”).

日本三星在日本指定一家封裝公司

矽晶圓在那家封裝公司切割封裝之後再運到美國的奧斯丁三星

(可以說日本三星完全沒碰到矽晶圓)

MEMC在美國告SUMCO

根據的是USC 271(a)銷售侵權及銷售之邀約侵權及(b)引誘侵權

 

此案要釐清的是

對於SUMCO而言

日本三星及奧斯丁三星，何者是買家

如果是日本三星

因為買賣發生於日本

就沒有USC 271(a)的問題

如果是奧斯丁三星

就可能有USC 271(a)的問題

 

SUMCO和日本三星之間、SUMCO和奧斯丁三星之間都有一些互動

但是CAFC只考慮以下幾點：

就製造矽晶圓的SUMCO而言

誰決定何時下單?誰決定數量？誰決定運送目的地？誰決定封裝運送事宜?誰付錢？

答案都是日本三星

因此買家就日日本三星

Turning to the question of actual sale, the undisputed evidence is as follows:

(1) Samsung Japan alone controls when SUMCO receives an electronic purchase order and how many wafers are ordered;

(2) Samsung Japan designates a third party packaging company to transport the wafers to Samsung Austin;

(3) Samsung Japan arranges for the packaging, labeling, and shipping of the wafers; and (4) Samsung Japan pays SUMCO electronically for the wafers after they are delivered by the packaging company.

Significantly, as far as the sale is concerned, MEMC points to no additional evidence. Thus, any “sale” of the wafers took place between SUMCO and Samsung Japan, and the sale occurred in Japan where all of the essential activities took place.

 

至於引誘侵權

判斷的標準在於是否有教導如何使用產品

Under section 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §271(b). “In order to succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show, first that there has been direct infringement,” and “second, that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.”(要引誘侵權要有intent)

 

“Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe.”(證明有intent的證據，例如教導如何使用)

 

之後的引誘侵權的判例

例如2009 i4i vs Microsoft、2009 Lucent vs Microsoft、2008 Broadband vs ITC

都是以是否有教導使用作為判斷的標準