专利被告避免禁令的策略

每日IP英文第396期：

本文探讨了各个法域中专利侵权案件的被告如何避免禁令的策略，尽管民法法系（civil law systems，即大陆法系）和普通法系（common law systems）国家对待禁令的方式不同，但是，总的策略包括：1. 挑战专利的有效性；2. 产品规避设计；3. 依靠困难和公共利益之间的平衡。

后附Google翻译，仅供参考。

---

Strategies patent defendants use to avoid injunctions

November 20 2020 | Dennemeyer – The IP Group - Steven M. Shape

Facing the threat of a patent lawsuit can quickly throw a company into uncomfortable and uncharted waters. Even if your legal team is confident that it can vindicate your legal rights, there is plenty of reasonable concern about how such allegations can significantly alter your prospects and the ability to conduct your business.

The word 'injunction' can create a special kind of fear as a court order can completely disrupt everyday business activities. Many defendants in patent suits are not prepared to run the risk that a major source of revenue could be shut down as the result of an adverse legal ruling. If your company has decided to stand firm against a potential infringement suit, here are some strategies that can be pursued to help avoid the damaging impact of an injunction.

First, what is a patent injunction?

An injunction is a legal remedy that can be awarded by a court to a property owner who proves that a property right has been infringed upon. An injunction is an equitable remedy that may be awarded when the court determines that a remedy available at law, such as monetary damages, is insufficient to cure the infringement of the property right. In the context of patent law, a court may award an injunction if a patent owner proves infringement and shows both that monetary damages are not an effective cure and that future infringement must be prevented.

Injunctions against patent infringement are available in many national court systems, but there are some procedural differences as to when courts may make injunctions available as a remedy. For example, many European countries use civil law systems that rely heavily on legal statutes that prohibit specific infringing acts. If a plaintiff in one of these countries alleges infringement based on actions not specified in the injunction statute, injunctive relief may not be available. In contrast, courts in common law systems typically have broad discretion for shaping relief in equity and are not limited to a specific set of wrongful acts. However, judicial precedent in common law jurisdictions can have their limiting impacts. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange eliminated the presumption that a patent owner proving infringement in court was entitled to injunctive relief, instead of creating a four-factor test U.S. courts continue to apply.

Challenging patent validity to eliminate injunction threat

One way that defendants in patent infringement cases can address the infringement charges levied against them is by raising a legal challenge to the asserted patent claims' validity. At many patent agencies across the world, patent opposition and review proceedings are available, resulting in the agency reconsidering its previous grant of patent claims. Although many jurisdictions apply a presumption of patent validity in infringement proceedings, pursuing these validity proceedings can help a defendant stay an infringement case or possibly avoid an injunction.

Any party pursuing this kind of legal strategy will need to be aware of the legal requirements on filing for these types of patent challenges. Often, different countries will have varying rules on the timing of challenges or who may file them. The European Patent Office (EPO) allows any member of the public to challenge an issued patent, but an opposition proceeding must be filed within nine months of the EPO publishing notice that the patent has been allowed. In the U.S., validity challenges conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can be requested by any entity targeted with infringement allegations up to one year after an infringement suit has been filed.

Designing around patent claims to stay in the market

Similar to how deeds to real estate describe the boundaries of the property being conveyed to the purchaser, patents describe the boundaries of the technology being protected through a series of claims defining the scope of the invention. While a patent owner has many legal remedies available to protect their property rights in the technology, that owner has no recourse under patent law to prevent others from making, using or selling a technology that avoids the invention covered by the patent claims.

Patent owners have many legal remedies available to protect their property rights in the technology. Still, they have no recourse under patent law to prevent others from making or selling a technology that avoids the invention covered by the patent claims.

Designing around a competitor's patent claims requires a challenging assessment of the economic hurdles, which must be overcome to make a non-infringing alternative reality. Technologies covered by expired patents can be freely practiced, but there is a risk of losing market share to a competitor with a more state-of-the-art product or service. Developing a new alternative may also help you avoid a lawsuit but comes with all the costs of a typical research and development process. Companies pursuing a design around should also be aware whether they are operating in a country that applies the doctrine of equivalents, which can lead to a patent infringement ruling even if the allegedly infringing technology falls outside of the literal scope of the patent claims.

Lean on the balance of hardships and public interest factors

An injunction is typically seen as an extraordinary remedy. While it may be available to patent owners who prove infringement, many courts will employ some analytical test to determine whether the court can properly exercise its discretion to award equitable relief. U.S. courts will use a four-factor test that will look, in part, at the balance of hardships between the patent owner and the alleged infringer as well as any public interest factors that could be impacted by an injunction. If the alleged infringer is the sole distributor of an essential medical product, for example, an injunction could harm the welfare of patients who rely on that product.

As for the balance of hardships, there are situations where a court will look more favorably upon a defendant's position. The plaintiff's organizational structure might be such that a court could be persuaded that future infringement will not cause irreparable harm. Non-practicing entities (NPEs), patent-owning entities that do not practice the technologies covered by the patents they own, often have difficulty arguing that an injunction is necessary when they produce no competitive product. NPEs also usually only seek to monetize their patents instead of capturing market share. In this scenario, a court could find that monetary damages provide an adequate remedy, eliminating any need for equitable relief. 

---

Google 翻译：

专利被告避免禁令的策略

November 20 2020 | Dennemeyer – The IP Group - Steven M. Shape

面对专利诉讼的威胁，很快就会使公司陷入不舒适和未知的境地。即使您的法律团队有信心可以维护您的合法权益，对于此类指控如何能够显着改变您的前景和开展业务的能力，也有很多合理的关注。

“禁令”一词会引起一种特殊的恐惧，因为法院命令会完全破坏日常的商业活动。许多专利诉讼中的被告不准备承担由于不利的法律裁决而可能关闭主要收入来源的风险。如果您的公司决定坚决反对潜在的侵权诉讼，则可以采用以下策略来帮助避免强制令造成的破坏性影响。

首先，什么是专利禁令？

强制令是一种法律补救措施，可以由法院授予证明财产权受到侵犯的财产所有人。强制令是一种公平的补救措施，当法院认为法律上可用的补救措施（例如金钱损失）不足以解决侵犯财产权的行为时，可以授予该强制措施。在专利法的背景下，如果专利权人证明侵权，并证明金钱损失不是有效的解决方法，并且必须防止将来的侵权，则法院可以判处禁制令。

在许多国家/地区的法院系统中都可以使用禁止专利侵权的禁令，但是关于法院何时可以提供禁令作为补救措施，在程序上存在一些差异。例如，许多欧洲国家/地区使用的民法体系在很大程度上依赖于禁止特定侵权行为的法律法规。如果其中一个国家的原告基于禁令法规中未指定的诉讼指控侵权，则可能无法获得禁令救济。相比之下，普通法系的法院通常拥有广泛的酌处权来决定平等的救济，而不仅限于特定的一系列不法行为。但是，普通法司法管辖区中的司法判例可能会产生有限的影响。例如，美国最高法院2006年在eBay诉MercExchange中的判决 消除了在法庭上证明侵权的专利所有者有权获得禁令救济的假设，而不是对美国法院进行四因素测试，继续适用。

挑战专利有效性以消除禁制令威胁

专利侵权案件中的被告可以解决对其提出的侵权指控的一种方式是，对主张的专利权利要求的有效性提出法律质疑。在世界各地的许多专利代理处，都有专利异议和复审程序，导致该代理机构重新考虑了其先前授予的专利权利要求。尽管许多司法管辖区都在侵权诉讼中采用了专利有效性的推定，但进行这些有效性诉讼可以帮助被告中止侵权案件或可能避免强制令。

追求这种法律策略的任何一方都需要了解针对此类专利挑战提交的法律要求。通常，不同国家/地区对挑战时机或挑战者的规则会有所不同。欧洲专利局（EPO）允许任何公众对已发布的专利提出异议，但是异议程序必须在EPO发布允许该专利的通知后的9个月内提出。在美国，任何提出侵权指控的实体均可在专利诉讼和上诉委员会（PTAB）提出诉讼后一年内提出质疑。

围绕专利主张进行设计以留在市场中

类似于对房地产的契约如何描述被转移到购买者的财产的边界，专利通过定义本发明范围的一系列权利要求描述了受保护技术的边界。尽管专利拥有人可以使用许多法律救济来保护其技术产权，但是该专利拥有人没有专利法规定的追索权，以防止他人制造，使用或出售避免专利权利要求所涵盖的发明的技术。

专利拥有者可以使用许多法律补救措施来保护其技术产权。尽管如此，根据专利法，他们仍无权阻止他人制造或销售避免专利权利要求涵盖的发明的技术。

围绕竞争对手的专利权利要求进行设计需要对经济障碍进行具有挑战性的评估，必须克服这一障碍才能实现非侵权的替代现实。可以免费实践已过期专利所涵盖的技术，但存在因拥有更先进的产品或服务而使竞争对手失去市场份额的风险。开发新的替代方法也可以帮助您避免提起诉讼，但要付出典型研发过程的所有费用。进行外观设计的公司还应该知道他们是否在采用等同原则的国家/地区开展业务，这可能导致专利侵权裁决，即使涉嫌侵权的技术不在专利权利要求的字面范围内。

依靠困难和公共利益因素之间的平衡

强制令通常被视为一种非凡的补救措施。尽管证明侵权的专利所有人可以使用它，但许多法院将采用某种分析测试来确定法院是否可以适当地行使其酌处权来裁定公平的救济。美国法院将使用四因素检验，部分检验专利持有人和被指控的侵权人之间的困境之间的平衡，以及可能受到禁令影响的任何公共利益因素。例如，如果所指控的侵权人是基本医疗产品的唯一分销商，则禁制令可能会损害依赖该产品的患者的福利。

至于艰难的平衡，在某些情况下，法院会更看重被告的立场。原告的组织结构可能使法院可以说服未来侵权不会造成无法弥补的损害。非执业实体（NPE）是未实践其所拥有专利所涵盖的技术的专利拥有实体，通常很难辩称，当它们不生产竞争性产品时就必须实行禁制令。NPE通常也只寻求通过专利获利，而不是抢占市场份额。在这种情况下，法院可能会发现金钱损失可以提供适当的补救措施，而无需任何公平的救济。