【重要美國專利案例評析】

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於2015年6月16日所做出的Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC案之判決內容，其中，Part II.C.1是全院庭審（en banc）判決。這個全院庭審判決改變了美國專利法第112條第6段「功能附加手段」（Means-plus-function，簡稱MPF）用語的適用與否的推定規則，雖然改變的內容並不算多，但還是值得大家注意。

案件背景事實
原告及上訴人Richard A. Williamson（以下簡稱Williamson），為At Home Corporation Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust之信託管理人，擁有系爭6,155,840美國專利（以下簡稱’840專利），提出了一種「分散式學習」（distributed learning）的方法、系統及伺服器，並且在系統獨立項claim 8的最後一個元件使用了”distributed learning control module for…”這樣的寫法，這也成為本案件的爭點所在。
被告及被上訴人一共有三組，包括有：Citrix Online、Microsoft、Adobe公司，Webex Communications、Cisco公司，以及IBM公司等（以下合稱Citrix Online, LLC等）。原告Williamson於2011年3月22日對被告Citrix Online, LLC等提出侵害其系爭’840專利之侵權告訴；2012年9月4日，聯邦地方法院做出申請專利範圍解釋判決（claim construction order），其中，聯邦地方法院認為系統獨立項claim 8的”distributed learning control module”係為35 U.S.C.第112條第6段「功能附加手段」用語，因此，於評估系爭’840專利之說明書內容後認為其內並未揭露必須的演算法以實施所有這些功能，故聯邦地方法院認為系統獨立項claim 8以及其附屬項claims 9-16皆因為35 U.S.C.第112條第2段之不明確（indefinite）而無效。因此，原告Williamson向聯邦巡迴上訴法院提出上訴，主張被告的舉證並無法推翻「強烈」的「功能附加手段」用語適用與否之推定，所以”distributed learning control module”並不適用第112條第6段。
 
案件爭點
本案的主要爭點其實很簡單，就是系爭專利中的系統獨立項claim 8中之”distributed learning control module”這個限制條件，究竟是否會落入美國專利法第112條第6段而應該被解讀為「功能附加手段」用語？
 
相關法律規定
1. 參考美國專利法35 U.S.C.第112條「專利說明書」（Specification）之相關規定，無論是Pre-AIA法案的第6段，或是AIA法案後的(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION，都有著相同的內容。由於本案系爭’840專利是在AIA法案施行日2012年9月16日之前所提出申請，因此適用Pre-AIA法案的法條規定，其相關規定如下： 2. 法院長久以來的判決皆認為，並不會僅僅是因為使用”means”這個字眼，就自動地使其落入第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語；而其相反的解釋也成立，並不會僅僅是因為沒有使用”means”這個字眼，就自動地排除其落入第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語。
Merely because a named element of a patent claim is followed by the word "means," however, does not automatically make that element a "means-plus-function" element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6....  The converse is also true; merely because an element does not include the word "means" does not automatically prevent that element from being construed as a means-plus-function element.  Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed.Cir.1997); see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("We do not mean to suggest that section 112(6) is triggered only if the claim uses the word `means.'").

3. 然而，在之後的數年至本案作出判決前，聯邦巡迴上訴法院作出的數個判決，從2004年的Lighting World案開始，首次認為如果是在裝置項的申請專利範圍中缺少使用”means”這個字眼，其法律效果會是一個「強烈」（strong）的推定（presumption）其不適用第112條第6段，而之後作出的數個判決，例如2011年的Inventio案、2012年的Flo Healthcare案、及2014年的Apple案等，更是不斷地提高該標準，故這個推定雖然是可以被推翻，但因為它已經形成了「強烈」推定，所以實務上要怎麼樣來推翻會產生爭議，這正是本案的最主要爭點。
 
 
聯邦巡迴上訴法院全院庭審見解
1. 聯邦巡迴上訴法院於受理上訴後，於2014年之第一次審理結果（稱為Williamson I判決），判決的多數意見認為’840專利之”distributed learning control module”這個限制條件已經有足夠的結構特徵，因此並不會落入35 U.S.C.第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語的範圍。

2. 然而，聯邦巡迴上訴法院同意全院庭審此一上訴案，於2015年作出第二次審理結果（稱為Williamson II判決），亦即其中的Part II.C.1是全院庭審判決，推翻了之前自己所作出的Williamson I判決。

(1) 於該全院庭審判決中，第一階段是判斷該用語”distributed learning control module”是否有美國專利法第112條第6段之適用？
多數意見認為「強烈」的推定這個概念並不合理應該要拿掉，而認為應該要回到2004年的Lighting World案以前的見解，並不需要高標準的證據才會滿足為「功能附加手段」用語，在此推翻了那些先例：
Our consideration of this case has led us to conclude that such a heightened burden is unjustified and that we should abandon characterizing as "strong" the presumption that a limitation lacking the word "means" is not subject to § 112, para. 6….  Henceforth, we will apply the presumption as we have done prior to Lighting World, without requiring any heightened evidentiary showing and expressly overrule the characterization of that presumption as "strong."  We also overrule the strict requirement of "a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure."
而其判斷標準也回到1996年的Greenberg案所述之標準：
The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583.  
因此，當沒有使用”means”這個字眼時，推定不適用第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語，這個推定可以被推翻：
When a claim term lacks the word "means," the presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to "recite sufficiently definite structure" or else recites "function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function." Watts, 232 F.3d at 880.  
而相反的推定並不會受此影響，亦即若使用”means”這個字眼時，將推定會適用第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語：
The converse presumption remains unaffected: "use of the word `means' creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies." Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703.
(Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), superseding 770 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014))
 
(2) 雖然並非此全院庭審判決之一部分，但第二階段則是討論到”module”這個字眼該如何來界定，結論為其如同”mechanism”、”element”、”device”等一般性用語，並不具有足夠確定的結構特徵，因此，其將可能會適用第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語。
"Module" is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for "means" in the context of § 112, para. 6. As the district court found, "`module' is simply a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function." J.A. 31. Generic terms such as "mechanism," "element," "device," and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word "means" because they "typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure" and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6. Mass. Inst. Of Tech. & Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2006); see generally M.P.E.P. § 2181.
(Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015))
 
(3) 雖然亦非此全院庭審判決之一部分，但第三階段則是針對是否有「揭露對應的結構」（Disclosure of Corresponding Structure）進行分析，以下幾段判決內容所揭露之判斷方式、及其所引用之判決頗值得參考：
(a) 若內部證據清楚地將說明書中揭露的結構連結或關連到請求項的功能，則該結構可做為「對應的結構」：
 
Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as "corresponding structure" if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. Id. (citing B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997)).
 
(b) 即使說明書揭露了對應的結構，揭露內容必須是達成所請求的功能的「適當」對應結構：
 
Even if the specification discloses corresponding structure, the disclosure must be of "adequate" corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1311-12 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir.1994) (en banc)).
 
(c) 因此依美國專利法第112條第2段與第6段，若熟悉該項技藝者無法認識說明書中的結構，並將其關聯到請求項中的對應功能，那麼手段功能用語不明確：
 
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paras. 2 and 6, therefore, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-function clause is indefinite. Id. at 1312 (citing AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed.Cir.2007)).
 
(d) 本法院持續地要求說明書中的對應結構必須不僅僅只是通用電腦或微處理器：
 
… this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. E.g., Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.1999)).
 
(e) 我們要求說明書揭露用於執行請求項的功能的演算法：
 
We require that the specification disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2008).
 
(f) 演算法可以數學公式、短文、或流程圖、或可提供充分結構的其他任何方式呈現：
 
The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312 (citing Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2008)).
(Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015))
 
小結
1. 使用”means”這個字眼，將推定會適用美國專利法第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語，而這個推定可以被推翻。
2. 而相反地，若不使用”means”這個字眼，將推定並不會適用美國專利法第112條第6段之「功能附加手段」用語，而這個推定也可以被推翻，而且從此將不再是「強烈」的推定。
 

本文章之專業內容，僅為提供資訊參考，非作為法律諮詢之用，亦純屬作者個人之意見，不代表本所或作者任何曾任職過單位之立場。
 

相關參考資料
1. 聯邦巡迴上訴法院全院庭審判決原文：Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)案（網址：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1130.Opinion.6-11-2015.1.PDF）。
2. 聯邦巡迴上訴法院2014年判決原文：Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)案（網址：https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1130/13-1130-2014-11-05.html）。
3. Claim 8 of the ‘840 patent:
A system for conducting distributed learning among a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network, the system comprising:
a presenter computer system of the plurality of computer systems coupled to the network and comprising:
a content selection control for defining at least one remote streaming data source and for selecting one of the remote streaming data sources for viewing; and
a presenter streaming data viewer for displaying data produced by the selected remote streaming data source;
an audience member computer system of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system via the network, the audience member computer system comprising:
an audience member streaming data viewer for displaying the data produced by the selected remote streaming data source; and
a distributed learning server remote from the presenter and audience member computer systems of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system and the audience member computer system via the network and comprising:
a streaming data module for providing the streaming data from the remote streaming data source selected with the content selection control to the presenter and audience member computer systems; and
a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module.