华为专利观察 | Means-Plus-Function两种截然不同认定以及侵权判定的认定标准

产业

IPRdaily10年前

华为专利观察 | Means-Plus-Function两种截然不同认定以及侵权判定的认定标准

文 /王国平 (华为公司知识产权部) 本文系作者向IPRdaily投稿，授权首发，并经IPRdaily编辑，转载须征得作者同意，并注明文章来源（微信：IPRdaily）。

Means-Plus-Function两种截然不同认定以及侵权判定的认定标准——Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics案

引言

2015年6月23日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院CAFC对Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics案做出判决：

1、维持专利权（US5436529）有效；

2、认定“voltage source means……”不适用112, 6th，“control means capable of……”适用112, 6th；

3、判决被告侵犯原告专利，赔偿原告$3million。

首先，给大家看一下权利要求：

1. An energy conversion device employing an oscillating resonant converter producing oscillations, having DC input terminals producing a control signal and adapted to power at least one gas discharge lamp having heatable filaments, the device comprising:

voltage source means providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals;

output terminals connected to the filaments of the gas discharge lamp;

control means capable of receiving control signals from the DC input terminals and from the resonant converter, and operable to effectively initiate the oscillations, and to effectively stop the oscillations of the converter; and direct current blocking means coupled to the output terminals and operable to stop flow of the control signal from the DC input terminals, whenever at least one gas discharge lamp is removed from the output terminals or is defective.

笔者试图解析如下三个问题：

一、权利要求1中的“voltage source means……”与“control means……”是否适用美国专利法第112条第6款（35 U.S.C. § 112. 6）；

二、如何认定被控侵权产品具有权利要求1中的特征“control means capable of ……”；

三、对于means-plus-function （简称：MPF）权利要求，在侵权判定中如何认定字面侵权以及等同侵权。

大家搬个小板凳，现在开讲哈……

一、“voltage source means”与“control means”的认定：

1、voltage source means的认定：

本案中，涉诉专利的实施例中并没有描述voltage source means是什么东东，原告引用发明人Mr. Bobel以及专家证人Dr. Victor Roberts的证言（testimony），即引入外部证据（extrinsic evidence）证明：voltage source means corresponds to a rectifier，不适用§ 112.6。地区法院和CAFC都支持了原告的观点。

我们来看一下地区法院和发明人的对话：

Q. Now, sir, there’s been a lot of talk with Dr. Roberts. Did you invent voltage source means?

A. No.

Q. Did you invent the rectifier?

A. No.

从发明人的角度看， voltage source means是现有的技术。

地区法院认为：

The district court cited testimony from an expert for Lighting Ballast, Dr. Victor Roberts, and the inventor, Andrzej Bobel, both of whom testified that one of skill in the art would understand the claimed “voltage source means” to correspond to a rectifier, which converts alternating current (“AC”) to direct current (“DC”), or other structure capable of supplying useable voltage to the device. Thus, the district court conclude that the term “voltage source means” had sufficient structure to avoid the strictures of § 112.6.

CAFC认为：

The district court went on to note that the language following “voltage source means” in the claim—“providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals”—“when read by one familiar with the use and function of a lighting ballast, such as the one disclosed by the 529 Patent, [sic] would understand a rectifier is, at least in common uses, the only structure that would provide a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage”. CAFC还认为，专家证人Dr. Roberts 解释”the voltage source means” limitation suggests to him a sufficient structure, or class of structures, namely a rectifier if converting AC from a “power line source” to DC for a “DC supply voltage” or a battery if providing the DC supply voltage directly to the DC input terminals. This expert testimony supports a conclusion that the limitations convey a defined structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.

2. control means的认定：

首先，在claim construction的过程中，双方都认为“control means”适用§ 112.6；

然后，法院解释了权利要求1中的“control means”具有如下两个功能：

（1）control means

（a）capable of receiving a control signal from the DC input terminals and;

（b）operable to effectively initiate oscillations, and;

（2）control means

（a）capable of receiving a control signal from the resonant converter, and;

（b）operable to effectively stop the oscillations.

最后，法院解释了corresponding structure for the “control means” requirement. 法院认为，the patent describes a series of discrete electrical components arrayed in a specific configuration to form three series current paths to fulfill the function of starting and stopping the oscillations of the resonant converter (see column 3, line 59 through column 4, line 21). 即，专利中描述了一系列分立电子元件以具体的设计方式形成三个电流通道，从而实现了初始化及停止谐振变化器的振荡。

二、如何认定被控侵权产品具有权利要求1中的特征“control means capable of ……

首先，对于means-plus-function claim term，如何认定字面侵权：

“For a means-plus-function claim term, the term literally covers an accused device if the relevant structure in the accused device performs the identical function recited in the claim and that structure is identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification”. Intellectual Science &Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 589 F.3d 1179,1183.

“an equivalent structure under § 112. 6 must have been available at the time of the issuance of the claim, whereas the doctrine of equivalents can capture after-arising technology developed after the issuance of the patent”. Al-Site Corp., 174F.3d at 1320

如上，对于means-plus-function claim term，在判定字面侵权时，满足如下三点：

1、被控侵权产品的结构在专利权利要求授权之时，是可获得的；

2、被控侵权产品实现了与权利要求中MPF term相同的功能（performs the identical function recited in the claim）；

3、被控侵权产品具有专利实施例中相同的结构或者相等同的结构（structure is identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification）

其次，我们来看原告如何证明被控侵权产品具有control means的功能以及相应的结构：

当当当……，证人Dr. Roberts出场：

Dr. Roberts认为权利要求1中的“control means”为529专利实施例中control circuit 58。Dr. Roberts首先解释了control circuit 58的结构和功能；

接着，Dr. Roberts论证了被控侵权产品的IC以及周边分立元件为具有control means的两个功能，Dr. Roberts进一步解释了被控侵权产品如何实现这两个功能“The signal flows down through these resistors[,] through these discrete transistors and eventually over the integrated circuit only into a pin labeled EN2 [,] which enables oscillations.”

最后，Dr. Roberts证明了早在1980年IC就有应用在ballast上了，Dr. Roberts进一步证明了“anybody skilled in the art would have been aware of integrated circuits in 1993”。

结论：法院基于专家证人Dr. Roberts的证明以及证言，认为已经有足够的证据证明应用在ballasts的IC在专利授权之时就已经存在了，而且IC的功能和结构具有control means的功能和结构，CAFC支持了地区法院的观点。

三、对于means-plus-function （简称：MPF）权利要求，在侵权判定中如何认定字面侵权以及等同侵权？

对此，笔者查阅了一些判例以及论文，总结如下：

前提：我们把这个问题限定在权利要求中具有MPF term的情形下，并且被控侵权产品的其他特征与权利要求一致。

1、适用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，构成字面侵权的情形：

被控侵权产品的功能具有与MPF权利要求相同的功能，并且，被控侵权产品的结构具有与专利实施例中MPF term相同或者相等同的结构，并且，被控侵权产品的结构在专利申请日/授权日之前可获得。

2、适用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，构成等同侵权的情形：

等同侵权三个基本：基本相同的功能、基本相同的手段、基本相同的效果

被控侵权产品的功能具有与MPF权利要求的功能相等同，并且，被控侵权产品的结构落入了与专利实施例中MPF term相同或者相等同的结构的等同结构范围内（注意：在适用112.6判定等同侵权时，是可以基于专利实施例中MPF term相同或等同的结构，再等同一次，扩大了MPF term structure的解释范围）。

如下图，可以看出，在适用35 U.S.C. § 112. 6，构成等同侵权的情形中：

对权利要求中的MPF term功能做了扩大，基本相同的功能：