聯邦巡迴上訴法院在11月1日的判決中，對於併入參照 (incorporated by reference) 的相關案內容，對被併入專利的請求項解釋的影響，做出重要見解。以下整理本案的核心重點，並附實務建議供參。
參考資料
上訴法院判決原文：FINJAN LLC v. ESET, LLC, No. 2021-2093 (Fed. Cir. November 1, 2022)
系爭專利：US 6,154,844、US 6,804,780、US 8,079,086 以及 US 9,189,621。
被併入參照的非系爭專利：US 6,167,520 以及 US 6,480,962
2017年地方法院的Claim construction order：CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
2021年地方法院認為請求項無效的中間判決：AMENDED ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INDEFINITENESS
案件背景
Finjan在南加州地院訴ESET侵害其專利權。南加州地院應被告聲請，做出中間判決，認為Finjan系爭專利的請求項用語 "downloadable" 應該被解釋成 "“a small executable or interpretable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer"。 接著地院認為 "small" 這個字不明確，因此認為Finjan的專利請求項無效。Finjan不服上訴。
下圖是系爭專利的專利家族關係圖。紅框的是訴訟的系爭專利，綠框的是被系爭專利 "併入參照 (incorporated by reference)" 的相關專利：
系爭專利844專利與780專利的說明書中，對於 "downloadable" 的定義如下：
A Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer. A Downloadable is typically requested by an ongoing process such as by an Internet browser or web client. Examples of Downloadables include Java™ applets designed for use in the Java™ distributing environment developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc., JavaScript™ scripts also developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc., ActiveX™ controls designed for use in the ActiveX™ distributing environment developed by the Microsoft Corporation, and Visual Basic also developed by the Microsoft Corporation. Downloadables may also include plugins, which add to the functionality of an already existing application program.
系爭專利 086專利與621專利的說明書中，對於 "downloadable" 的定義如下：
Downloadable information comprising program code can include distributable components (e.g. Java™ applets and JavaScript scripts, ActiveX™ controls, Visual Basic, add-ins and/or others). It can also include, for example, application programs, Trojan horses, multiple compressed programs such as zip or meta files, among others.
很明顯在四件系爭專利的說明書中，對於downloadable的定義，都不包括 "small" 這個字。
然而，被四件系爭專利併入參照的520專利與962專利中，對於 "downloadable" 的定義就有 "small" 這個字：
A Downloadable is a small executable or interpretable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer. A Downloadable is used in a distributed environment such as in the Java™ distributed environment produced by Sun Microsystems or in the ActiveX™ distributed environment produced by Microsoft Corporation.
地方法院在請求項解釋裁定中，認為系爭專利跟併入參照的相關專利中，關於downloadable的定義不一樣，但經過考量後，採用了520專利與962專利說明書中的定義，認為downloadable這個字的解釋，應該包括small這個字：
The Court finds that the two branches of the family tree of the patents at issue inform that a Downloadable in the context of these patents means a small executable or interpretable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer. This construction comports with the plain definition set forth in the '520 patent and the '962 patent, and is supported by the written description including the definition and the examples set forth in the '194 patent and its progeny, and in the entirety of specification of the '844 patent.
The Court therefore construes the term Downloadable in all five patents as a small executable or interpretable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer.
後來在2021年的中間判決中，地方法院認為Finjan沒有遞交證據，證明熟習相關技藝者理解 "small" 這個字的合理範圍為何，因此請求項因不明確而無效：
In sum, Finjan never offered evidence of a reasonable range for the size of a small executable or interpretable application program as understood by a skilled artisan in 1997 based on examples provided in the patent specification. Instead, Finjan elected at trial to offer a new understanding without reference to the size of the application as the objective boundary of a "small" application. Finjan's new definition is not supported by the specification or prosecution history. It may be convenient to support Finjan's infringement contentions against ESET's accused devices, but Finjan's new explanation does not provide clear notice of what constitutes a "small executable or interpretable application program."
上訴法院見解
首先，上訴法院認為併入參照這個動作，不一定會把併入參照的專利內容轉換成為成主專利的發明，而是主專利的揭露內容提供了上下文，決定併入參照的專利會對主專利請求項的解釋產生什麼影響（如果有的話）：
Yet, “incorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent.” Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc). Rather, the disclosure of the host patent provides context to determine what impact, if any, a patent incorporated by reference will have on construction of the host patent claims. See, e.g., X2Y Attenuators, 757 F.3d at 1363. “The disclosures of related patents may inform the construction of claim terms common across patents, but it is erroneous to assume that the scope of the invention is the same such that disclaimers of scope necessarily apply across patents. . . .” Id. at 1366 (J. Reyna, concurring).
上訴法院認為，本案中系爭專利與非系爭專利的不同定義，其實不是競爭關係。先申請案使用限制性用語，即使在刪掉該用語的後申請案中，併入參照先申請案，該用語也不會在後申請案被恢復 (這個觀念應該是本案最主要的核心觀念了) ：
The district court erred because it viewed the differing definitions throughout the patent family as competing and determined that the asserted patents should be limited to the most restricted definition of the term. We disagree. Here, it is not necessary to limit the asserted patents because the two definitions are not competing. The use of a restrictive term in an earlier application does not reinstate that term in a later patent that purposely deletes the term, even if the earlier patent is incorporated by reference. Modine Mfg., 75 F.3d at 1553 (finding that a grandparent patent defining “relatively small” to be “0.07 inches or less” did not incorporate this definition into the parent and child applications that deleted the definition).
在本案中，520專利將 "downloadable" 定義成 "small" ，代表專利家族的一個子集合請求了小型可執行應用程序的發明。這是因為 520專利的揭露內容聚焦在applets這種小型可執行應用程序 ：
The ’520 Patent, which defines a Downloadable as “small,” represents a subset of the patent family claiming an invention capable of downloading only small executable or interpretable application programs. That is because the disclosure in the ’520 Patent focuses on applets as small executable or interpretable application programs. See, e.g., ’520 Patent col. 1 ll. 31–32.
上訴法院認為，downloadable的定義不包括大小的限制，而是包括了所有大小的可執行應用程式。包括但不限於小型可執行應用程式。因為這兩個定義可以在專利家族中和諧存在，所以我們不一定必須將 '520 專利的定義應用於系爭專利。("兩個定義可以和諧存在" 這個觀念可能要留意，它應該是本案見解的條件之一。 )
The definition of “Downloadable” that does not include a size requirement refers to executable or interpretable application programs of all sizes, including, but not limited to, “small” executable or interpretable application programs. Because these two definitions can exist in harmony within the patent family, we do not necessarily have to apply the ’520 Patent’s definition to the asserted patents.
844專利與780專利則將 "downloadable" 描述成不只是 "小型" 可執行應用程序，舉的例子包括了“JavaTM applets,” “ActiveXTM controls,” “JavaScriptTM scripts,” and “Visual Basic scripts”。上訴法院認為，844專利與780專利將downloadable包括到更多功能，因此不限於原本520專利的小型可執行應用程式，且844專利與780專利舉的例子提供了支持：
The ’844 and ’780 Patents describe a Downloadable as “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” ’844 Patent col. 1 ll. 45–47; ’780 Patent col. 1 ll. 51–53. This definition is not limited to “small” executable application programs. The ’844 and ’780 Patents list examples of Downloadables, including “JavaTM applets,” “ActiveXTM controls,” “JavaScriptTM scripts,” and “Visual Basic scripts.” ’844 Patent col. 1 ll. 63–65; ’780 Patent col. 2 ll. 3–4. These examples expand upon the sole example listed in the ’520 Patent—applets. The ’844 and ’780 Patents define Downloadable to contemplate a broader functionality of the claimed invention not limited to downloading only “small” executable application programs, and the examples in the ’844 and ’780 Patents provide further support. Hence, in the ’844 and ’780 Patents, “Downloadable” should not be construed to include the term “small.”
其他系爭專利依據上下文，也不應該將downloadable限制在 "小型" 可執行應用程式：
Similar to the ’844 and ’780 Patents, the ’086, ’621, and ’755 Patents include examples expanding upon the ’520 Patent’s focus on “small” executable or interpretable application programs like applets as well. For example, the ’086 patent recites: “JavaTM applets and JavaScript™ scripts, ActiveX™ controls, Visual Basic, add-ins, and/or others . . . Trojan horses, multiple compressed programs such as zip or meta files.” ’086 Patent col. 2 ll. 3–9; ’621 Patent col. 2 ll. 36–40; ’755 Patent col. 2 ll. 36–40. Based on the context provided by the ’086, ’621, and ’755 Patents, the term “Downloadable” should not be restricted to “small” executable application programs.
基於以上，上訴法院認為系爭專利中使用的用語 "downloadable" 意義應該是沒有 "small" 這個限制。因此上訴法院撤銷了地院的解釋，也因此不需要檢視地院因為small這個限制不明確而做出的專利無效的決定：
In sum, the term “Downloadable” as used in the ’844, ’780, ’086, ’621, and ’755 Patents means “an executable or interpretable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” We therefore reverse the district court’s claim construction.
Because we reverse the district court’s claim construction, we need not to review the entirety of the district court’s determination of invalidity due to indefiniteness.
實務建議
這個案子的核心觀念如下：
- 併入參照這個動作，並不會把併入參照的專利內容轉換成為成主專利的發明，而是主專利的揭露內容提供了上下文，以決定併入參照的專利會對主專利請求項的解釋產生什麼影響。
- 若兩個定義可以在專利家族中和諧存在，則先申請案使用限制性用語，即使在刪掉該用語的後申請案中，併入參照先申請案，該限制性用語也不會在後申請案被恢復。
因此在為客戶規劃美國專利申請案的家族申請案內容，且打算將專利家族中，相關申請案的內容併入參照到後申請案時，需要留意後申請案的揭露內容上下文，會不會讓併入參照的相關申請案會對後申請案的請求項解釋產生影響。例如，如果延續申請案 (continuation) 的說明書中，對請求項用語增加了較寬廣的例子，則有機會併入參照的相關申請案的限縮解釋，不會對後申請案的該用語產生影響。
這需要考慮同一個請求項用語的兩個不同定義，在專利家族中是否可以和諧存在。比如，如果一個請求項用語的兩個定義是上下位概念，則在專利家族中，是允許一部份申請案的該用語被解釋成上位概念，另一部分申請案的該用語被解釋成下位概念的。各申請案的說明書揭露內容，包括說明書中舉的實際例子，對此判斷會相當關鍵。
不過，這需要修改後申請案說明書揭露內容，因此需要留意優先權主張問題。亦即，關於後申請案的解釋較寬的請求項，其主張國內優先權的母案是否能滿足書面描述要件。若有一連串的國內優先權母案，還需要留意優先權主張 "斷鍊" 的問題。關於這個問題，可以參考2021年8月的群帆讀書會的內容，我們在討論claim disavow的時候有討論到。
比如說，本案併入參照的520專利，其實是專利家族中的一個分支，並不是系爭專利主張國內優先權的母案。所以理論上，被告可以檢視系爭專利的整個優先權鍊，看看後續較廣的解釋，之前一連串的母案揭露內容，是否都能滿足書面要件。如果不行，那麼在優先權無法主張的情況下，可能有新穎性或進步性的防禦方法可主張。對專利權人而言，這點在一開始申請後續案時，就應該留意。
