美國專利訴訟策略之研究－以LGD VS. CPT案為例

Abstract

在知識經濟的潮流推動下，我國企業雖然對於智慧財產權已經愈來愈重視，但是仍舊經常被擁有美國專利的專利權人控訴侵權，造成營運上的困擾。這些專利權人，無論本身是從事生產、行銷、研發的競爭廠商，還是NPEs（non-practicing entities，非專利實施的實體），甚至就是典型的patent troll（專利流氓），大致上都有一項特點，就是以專利侵權訴訟的策略要求高額的和解金，透過美國專利侵害訴訟，向台灣的廠商威脅禁止侵權產品進口（主張美國關稅法337條），或是請求法院頒發禁制令(injunction)，禁止侵權產品繼續在美國販賣銷售。 由於美國不僅是目前全球最大的經濟體，更是台灣高科技產品最主要的消費國，台灣廠商一旦在專利侵權訴訟中敗訴，所可能帶來的高額損害賠償與品牌形象的傷害，不僅會讓業者面臨極大的經營風險，影響到收入的利潤，更可能會被競爭對手排除到市場之外，後果十分嚴重。 因此台灣的企業經營者，尤其是全球布局的廠商，在面對防不勝防的訴訟干擾時，應該採取理性而積極的因應對策，搜集完整的資訊，像是辨別對方的背景、目的和實力等。再來就是評估自己的成本效益與財力，是否足以支撐長期且昂貴的訴訟費用，另外加上間接可能的訂單、商譽損失，又要冒敗訴的風險，身為企業經營者，是選擇妥協和解，還是奮戰到底，甚至反守為攻，提出反訴爭取有利的機會？這些都是非常重要的課題。 本研究以我國高科技廠商的立場，思考涉及美國專利訴訟時之因應策略，需要蒐集那些相關資料，不僅關切訴訟輸贏的可能性，更考慮公司的最佳利益，減少不必要的風險，隨時把握最新資訊，公司內部也應及早建立面對訴訟的防範機制與標準操作程序（SOP），有了健全和完善的因應策略，才能確保企業的永續經營。

In a knowledge economy, intellectual property right becomes more and more important, Taiwan-based companies experiencing significant growth and diversifying into many product areas. Articles about these companies in international publications describing their rapid growth and success, which have received so many “cease and desist” or “invitations to license” letters claiming potential patent infringement in recent years from competitors. Other large world-wide companies and patent holding companies, also known as “ NPEs（non-practicing entities）” or “patent trolls” companies looking to generate revenue from their extensive patent portfolios. If they are in line of the law, Court could issue injunction preventing Taiwan-based companies‘product from entering the U.S. (Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act) or for sale in the U.S. U.S. Patent Litigation drives up costs for Taiwan-based companies, making it more difficult for companies to compete and grow. Moreover, some patent owners send letters to Taiwan-based companies’ customers to try to divert business. There are several things for Taiwan-based companies can do when being sued, such as Surveying and interviewing law firms with expertise on patent litigation, and starting their search for U.S. legal counsel as earlier as possible, after receiving the cease & desist letter, to assess its non-infringement position. Strategies and acts may include determining the goal in litigation, examining their own patent portfolio, determining if there are patents out there that could be used against plaintiff, resolving litigation on terms that made business sense, settling on reasonable terms, and waiting for favorable decision by judge, or Jury verdict. However, If Taiwan-based hi-tech company had built or acquired a larger patent portfolio and its own, it could have asserted its own claims against plaintiff, or portfolio could have provided leverage in negotiations, possibility of cross-license. It may also have asserted for searching for prior arts to invalidate plaintiff’s patent, looking for ways to apply pressure in the litigation, take any chance it thought was favorable, such as identifying the key claim terms for achieving victory in claim construction, or make any possible to reduce plaintiff ‘s demands and settled to avoid the cost of trial. In this manner Taiwan-based hi-tech company will be willing to invest more capital for R & D to create more valuable patents that benefits the company.