查看原文
其他

如何准备不侵权报告?

大岭IP 2019-04-29



你好,我是大岭(ID: dalingIPR),这是我为您分享IP英文的第204天:

美国企业为了避免在专利侵权诉讼被认定为故意侵权而处以最高三倍赔偿,通常会在产品上市前准备不侵权报告或者专利无效报告。本文通过最近的判例,总结出具这类不侵权报告的策略,其实对国内也有借鉴意义:

1. 为了让法院相信这类报告的公正性,公司应制定书面政策,声明任何研发经理和管理人员不得在撰写意见时发挥任何形式的作用。

2. 外部律师具有律师客户特权(attorney-client privilege),即律师对其在业务活动中得知的当事人的秘密可以拒绝作证的权利,从而可以避免不必要的风险。

3. 如果是内部工作人员准备的意见,很有可能会被要求出庭作证,由于其不享有律师客户特权,其可能必须要如实作出对公司不利的证明。

4. 鉴于法院的决定和对非专利律师,专利代理人和工程师,特别是内部工作人员准备的非侵权意见和无效意见的总体态度,最佳做法还是聘请外部专利律师准备这类意见。

后附google翻译,仅供参考。如果本文对您有帮助,请分享吧~~




Strategies for Preparing Infringement and Validity Opinions

By Matthew Epstein April 13, 2019

A company must be strategic in any business decision it makes in order to ensure that it takes the necessary measures to avoid liability for its actions. With respect to patent infringement, and specifically willful patent infringement, the different approaches to determining which measures to take and when to take such measures have been repeatedly challenged in light of a number of court decisions in recent years.

How to Avoid Willful Infringement

To set the scene, the Federal Circuit held in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (1983) that a potential infringer has an affirmative duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not he or she is infringing. This placed the burden on the potential infringer to seek competent counsel and obtain either a non-infringement opinion or invalidity opinion prior to undertaking the possible infringing activities. This would prevent a finding of willful infringement and treble damages.

The decision in Underwater Devices put an extremely heavy emphasis on obtaining non-infringement opinions and/or invalidity opinions in order to ensure that a court could not hold that any infringement was willful. However, in 2007, the Federal Circuit n In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) reversed its previous holding in Underwater Devices and adopted an “objective recklessness” standard. This standard removed the affirmative duty of the infringer to obtain an opinion from counsel. As a result of the decision in In re Seagate, the bar was dramatically lowered for an infringer to demonstrate that the infringement was not willful by allowing any argument of non-infringement or invalidity to be presented well after the infringing activities.

This standard remained in effect until the Supreme Court decided in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) that the In re Seagate decision was overly rigid. Thus, the Court shifted the pendulum back in the opposite direction toward Underwater Devices by disregarding the objective standard in In re Seagate and, instead, adopting a “subjective recklessness” standard. This encourages the Court to analyze the “particular circumstances” of each case on a case-by-case basis. While this decision does not put an absolute burden back on the potential infringer to provide an infringement opinion or validity opinion, as provided in Underwater Devices, it breathes life back into the importance of obtaining an infringement opinion at the outset of undertaking any potentially infringing actions instead of waiting to present such arguments at trial.

As a result of the Halo decision in 2016, it is critical that companies seek competent counsel and obtain these types of opinions sooner than later to rebut any claims of willful infringement. Often, companies may seek such an opinion from a competent in-house employee due to his or her familiarity with the potentially infringing product, such as legal counsel, patent attorney or other, patent agents, or engineers. The critical question though is whether such an opinion may be successfully relied upon in court to prove non-willful infringement or whether the opinion may be deemed to be self-serving and unreliable when prepared by an in-house employee, especially one that is not a qualified patent attorney.

With respect to opinions written by in-house non-patent related counsel, it was held in Underwater Devices that obtaining legal advice from a company’s own in-house counsel who is not a patent attorney is only one factor to be weighed when determining lack of good faith. Therefore, just because an attorney is in-house counsel does not mean that the attorney’s opinions are necessarily suspect. The Federal Circuit held in Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 788 F.2d 1554, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1986) that an oral opinion by non-patent counsel was sufficient to form the basis of a defendant’s good-faith belief. Similarly, the court in Western Electric Co., Inc. v. Stewart–Wagner Corp., 631 F.2d 333, 337 (4th Cir.1980) held that reliance on an opinion prepared by in-house counsel was reasonable. It should be noted, however, that the opinion provided by the in-house counsel in Underwater Devices contained only unsupported conclusions regarding the validity of the patent and infringement without a thorough review of the file histories of the patents at issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that an attorney must be an experienced patent attorney to be considered competent in preparing an infringement or validity opinion. Instead, the attorney is held to the same standard and expected to provide the same level of due diligence that would be expected of any patent attorney.

Opinions by Non-Patent Attorneys

With respect to in-house patent agents, some courts have outright dismissed these types of opinions. For example, the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas held in Signatech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc. that any opinion given by a patent agent not yet licensed to practice law was incompetent. No. CIV.A. SA-95-CA-0226, 1997 WL 745034, at *10 (WD Tex September 30, 1997), aff’d in part, rev’d in part 174 F3d 1352 (Fed Cir 1999). As a result, the Court held that no opinion from competent counsel concerning its potential patent infringement was ever obtained and, therefore, the company did not have a reasonable, good faith belief that it did not infringe the patent in question. This resulted in a finding of willful infringement and warranted an award of treble damages.

Additionally, companies having these types of opinions prepared by in-house patent agents and/or engineers run the risk of the author of the opinion becoming a witness during any litigation concerning the scope of the opinion. This can lead to the author of the opinion being deposed with respect to the opinion, as well as any related subjects such as the company’s technologies, its patent strategies, and litigation concerns. To the contrary, outside patent counsel would not be subject to this same line of questioning due to its attorney-client privilege.

The Federal Circuit addressed a patent-agent privilege when those agents are acting within the agent’s authorized practice of law. However, the Federal Circuit held in In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, 820 F3d 1287, 1301 (Fed Cir 2016) that an opinion provided by a patent agent with regard to the validity or infringement of another party’s patent in contemplation of litigation or for the sale or purchase of a patent are not “reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications or other proceeding before the Patent Office.” Thus, providing these types of opinions likely fall outside the scope of authorized practice of law and would not be subject to any privilege.

Strategies to Follow

Regardless of whether the opinion was prepared by in-house counsel, a patent agent, or an engineer, there are a few strategies that a company should put in place in order to help ensure the author’s impartiality. First and foremost, the author of the opinion should be certain to give an accurate and verifiable accounting of all the facts. Additionally, and arguably most important, the company should have a written policy in place stating that any research and development managers and managing executives are not permitted to have a role of any kind in writing the opinion. Doing so ensures that the author of the opinion was free to think without a supervisor dictating what should be written. This will also help to prove that the opinion was based solely on the author’s own professional judgment without any undue influence.

Therefore, in view of the courts’ decisions and overall attitude toward non-infringement opinions and invalidity opinions prepared by non-patent counsel, patent agents, and engineers, specifically those in-house, it is best practice to have outside patent counsel prepare these types of opinions. Doing so provides the greatest assurance that the author is not persuaded by any corporate influences. Furthermore, obtaining an opinion from outside counsel will avoid any unnecessary risks if litigation were to arise, such as waivers of privilege, as opposed to if the opinion was prepared by an in-house patent agent or engineer.




准备侵权和有效性意见的策略

作者: Matthew Epstein ,2019年4月13日

公司必须在其做出的任何商业决策中具有战略性,以确保其采取必要措施以避免对其行为承担责任。关于专利侵权,特别是故意侵犯专利权,根据近年来的一些法院裁决,一再挑战确定采取何种措施以及何时采取此类措施的不同方法。

如何避免故意侵权

为了确定现场,联邦巡回法院在Underwater Devices Inc.诉Morrison-Knudsen Co.,717 F.2d 1380(1983)中指出,潜在的侵权人有义务谨慎行事,以确定他或她是否侵权。这使得潜在侵权人有责任寻求合格的律师,并在进行可能的侵权活动之前获得非侵权意见或无效意见。这样可以防止发现故意侵权和三重赔偿。

Underwater Devices的决定非常重视获取非侵权意见和/或无效意见,以确保法院不能认定任何侵权行为是故意的。然而,在2007年,联邦巡回法院在希捷科技有限责任公司,497 F.3d 1360(美联储Cir.2007)推翻了之前在Underwater Devices的控股并采用了“客观鲁莽”标准。该标准取消了侵权人的肯定义务,以获得律师的意见。由于In Seagate的决定通过允许任何非侵权或无效的论据在侵权活动之后很好地展示,侵权人证明侵权行为不是故意的,因此该酒吧被大幅降低。

该标准一直有效,直到最高法院在Halo Electronics,Inc。诉Pulse Electronics,Inc., 136 S.Ct。1923年(2016年),In Seagate决定过于僵化。因此,法院无视In Seagate的客观标准,而是采用“ 主观鲁莽”标准,将钟摆向与Underwater Devices相反的方向转移。这鼓励法院逐案分析每个案件的“特殊情况”。虽然这一决定并未给潜在的侵权人带来绝对的负担,但却提供了侵权意见或有效性意见,如Underwater Devices所述它使生命重新回到了在进行任何可能侵权的行为时获得侵权意见的重要性,而不是等待在审判时提出这些论点。

由于2016年Halo的决定,公司必须尽快寻求有能力的律师并获得这些类型的意见,以反驳任何故意侵权的主张。通常,公司可能会因为熟悉潜在侵权产品(如法律顾问,专利律师或其他专利代理人或工程师)而向合格的内部员工寻求此类意见。然而,关键问题在于,是否可以在法庭上成功地依赖此类意见来证明非故意侵权,或者在内部员工准备时,意见是否可能被视为自我服务和不可靠,尤其是那些不是合格的专利律师。

关于内部非专利相关律师撰写的意见,它是在Underwater Devices中持有的,从公司自己的内部法律顾问那里获得法律建议而非专利律师只是在确定缺乏权利时要权衡的一个因素。诚信。因此,仅仅因为律师是内部法律顾问并不意味着律师的意见必然是可疑的。联邦巡回法院在Radio Steel&Mfg.Co。诉MTD Products,Inc., 788 F.2d 1554,1559(Fed.Cir.1986)中举行,非专利律师的口头意见足以构成被告人的善意信仰。同样,Western Electric Co.,Inc。的法院诉Stewart-Wagner公司。,631 F.2d 333,337(4th Cir.1980)认为依靠内部法律顾问编写的意见是合理的。然而,应该指出的是,Underwater Devices的内部法律顾问提供的意见仅包含关于专利有效性和侵权的无法得出的结论,而没有彻底审查相关专利的文件历史。因此,不能说律师必须是有经验的专利律师才能被认为有能力准备侵权或有效性意见。相反,律师遵守相同的标准,并期望提供与任何专利律师相同的尽职调查水平。

非专利律师的意见

对于内部专利代理人,一些法院完全驳回了这些类型的意见。例如,德克萨斯州西区的美国地方法院在Signatech USA,Ltd。v.Vutek,Inc。中持有由尚未获得执业法律许可的专利代理人提供的任何意见都不称职。第CIV.A. SA-95-CA-0226,1997 WL 745034,at * 10(WD Tex 1997年9月30日),部分转载于第174部分F3d 1352(Fed Cir 1999)。因此,法院认为,从未获得主管律师关于其潜在专利侵权的任何意见,因此,该公司没有合理,诚信的信念,即它没有侵犯有关专利。这导致了故意侵权的发现,并保证赔偿三倍赔偿金。

此外,由内部专利代理人和/或工程师准备的具有这些类型意见的公司冒着意见的作者在任何有关意见范围的诉讼中成为证人的风险。这可能导致意见的作者被置于意见之外,以及任何相关主题,如公司的技术,专利战略和诉讼问题。相反,由于其律师 - 客户特权,外部专利律师不会受到同样的质疑。

当这些代理人在代理人的授权法律实践中行事时,联邦巡回法院处理了专利代理人特权。然而,联邦巡回法院在In re Queen's Univ举行。在金斯敦,820 F3d 1287,1301(Fed Cir 2016),专利代理人在考虑诉讼或出售或购买专利时对另一方专利的有效性或侵权行为提出的意见并非“合理必要”专利申请或专利局之前的其他程序的准备和起诉事件。“因此,提供这些类型的意见可能不属于授权的法律实践范围,也不会受到任何特权的约束。

要遵循的策略

无论该意见是由内部法律顾问,专利代理人还是工程师准备,公司都应采取一些策略来帮助确保作者的公正性。首先,意见的作者应该确定对所有事实进行准确和可核实的核算。此外,并且可以说最重要的是,公司应制定书面政策,声明任何研发经理和管理人员不得在撰写意见时发挥任何形式的作用。这样做可以确保意见的作者可以自由地思考而不需要主管决定应该写什么。这也有助于证明该意见完全基于作者自己的专业判断而没有任何不当影响。

因此,鉴于法院的决定和对非专利律师,专利代理人和工程师,特别是内部工作人员准备的非侵权意见和无效意见的总体态度,最佳做法是让外部专利律师准备这些意见类型。这样做可以最大程度地保证作者不被任何公司影响所说服。此外,如果出现诉讼,例如放弃特权,而不是由内部专利代理人或工程师准备意见,那么从外部律师那里获得意见将避免任何不必要的风险。


Source:http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/04/13/infringement-validity-opinions-prepared-inhouse/id=108253/


--End--


往期相关内容:

发现专利侵权风险,该怎么办?

新课推荐:

24节专利基础视频课程,开启报名2天,报名人数已接近200人,只剩最后几席早鸟价260元,感谢大家的支持与信任。

点击下图报名吧^_^

    您可能也对以下帖子感兴趣

    文章有问题?点此查看未经处理的缓存