【智財評析】無法基於「善意相信專利無效」來對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯：美國聯邦最高法院Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.案評析
無法基於「善意相信專利無效」來對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯：美國聯邦最高法院Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.案評析
陳志清 律師／專利師（資格）
【重要美國專利案例評析】
美國聯邦最高法院於2015年5月26日，做出了重要的Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.案判決[附註1]，其認為：被控侵權人並無法基於「善意相信專利無效」（a good-faith belief in invalidity）來對「引誘侵權」（inducement infringement）形成抗辯。因此，這點頗值得讀者注意！
案件背景事實
1. 本案的原告為專利權人Commil USA LLC（以下簡稱”Commil”），推測可能是一家「未實施專利實體」（Non-Practicing Entity，簡稱”NPE”），其擁有一種關於短程無線網路方法之專利。而本案的被告為被控侵權人Cisco Systems, Inc.（以下簡稱”Cisco”），其為製造及銷售無線網路設備的美國大廠。
2. 於2007年，原告Commil在東區德州聯邦地方法院控告被告Cisco所製造及使用的網路設備侵害其專利權，並且被告Cisco藉由所銷售之網路設備引誘其他人使用亦侵害其專利權。系爭專利[附註2]之技術係關於一種介於行動裝置與基地台之間，可提供更快速、更可靠的通訊網路連結之方法（a method of providing faster and more reliable communications between devices and base stations）。
3. 本案件的背景事實並不複雜，但訴訟歷程卻並不簡單。簡而言之，於2010年5月，第一次陪審團認定被告Cisco有直接侵權且判賠金額、但並沒有「引誘侵權」，而原告Commil針對後者提起新審判程序的聲請，且法院准許；於2011年4月，第二次審判關於「引誘侵權」議題時，被告Cisco提出其具有善意相信系爭專利是無效的抗辯，然聯邦地方法院似乎並不認同其可以為一種抗辯，最後，第二次陪審團認定被告Cisco有「引誘侵權」且判賠了高額賠償金。而此同時的2011年，聯邦最高法院恰巧作出了重要的Global-Tech判決，故被告Cisco要求聯邦地方法院應當依據該判決的精神來作出判斷，但並不被允許。因此，被告Cisco不服最後的判決結果，提起上訴。
4. 於2013年6月25日，聯邦巡迴上訴法院作出判決[附註3]，並不認同地方法院之見解，其判決的第二部份認為：證據顯示被控引誘侵權人的「善意相信專利無效」可以否定「引誘侵權」時的意圖要件（… evidence of an accused inducer’s good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement.），而且我們看不出對於「引誘侵權」判定被告的特定意圖之目的時，需要來區隔出「善意相信專利無效」與「善意相信不侵害專利」之不同（We see no principled distinction between a good-faith belief of invalidity and a good-faith belief of non-infringement for the purpose of whether a defendant possessed the specific intent to induce infringement of a patent.）。這次換成原告Commil不服，提起上訴，聯邦最高法院稍後同意審理此案。
案件爭點
本案件的主要爭點就如同相關法條文字內容一樣，看起來很簡短但卻含意深遠，亦即：究竟對於專利的有效性之知悉或是相信，是否會成為美國專利法第271(b)條的「引誘侵權」之要件？（whether knowledge of, or belief in, a patent's validity is required for induced infringement under § 271(b).）
相關法律規定
1. 美國專利法第271(a)條係針對「直接侵權」（direct infringement）之規定，其中，對於此種侵權狀態，被控侵權人的「心智狀態」並不相關（Under this form of liability, a defendant's mental state is irrelevant. Direct infringement is a strict-liability offense. Global-Tech, 563 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2065-2066, n. 2.）。
而依據美國專利法第271(b)條，係針對「引誘侵權」（induced infringement）之規定：任何人積極地引誘使人侵害一件專利，應該負擔起侵權的責任。其中，此種「引誘侵權」狀態與前述的「直接侵權」狀態並不相同，僅僅當該被控引誘侵權人係知悉該件專利、且知悉其引誘行為將會構成專利侵權時，才需要負擔起侵權的責任（In contrast to direct infringement, liability for inducing infringement attaches only if the defendant knew of the patent and that "the induced acts constitute patent infringement." Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2068.）。
35 U.S. Code § 271－Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
2. 另外，美國聯邦最高法院先前於2011年所作出的Global-Tech判決，已經指出：當「引誘侵權」時，原告專利權人必須要證明被控的引誘侵權人係知悉該系爭專利、並且知悉其引誘行為將會構成侵權。
… in an action for induced infringement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the alleged inducer knew of the patent in question and knew the induced acts were infringing.
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2068-2069 (2011).
聯邦最高法院見解
1. 聯邦最高法院並不同意聯邦巡迴上訴法院之見解，其判決結果認為：被控侵權人若是基於「善意相信專利無效」（a good-faith belief in invalidity）並無法對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯。
2. 聯邦最高法院所採取的理由與見解如下：
(1) 基於「相信專利權是否有效」這點，並不能因此而否定第271(b)條「引誘侵權」所需的「明知」（scienter）要件。
The question the Court confronts today concerns whether a defendant's belief regarding patent validity is a defense to a claim of induced infringement. It is not. The scienter element for induced infringement concerns infringement; that is a different issue than validity. Section 271(b) requires that the defendant "actively induce[d] infringement." That language requires intent to "bring about the desired result," which is infringement. Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2065. And because infringement and validity are separate issues under the Act, belief regarding validity cannot negate the scienter required under § 271(b).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1928 (2015).
一個被控侵權人本來就可以依據成功地主張系爭專利無效、抑或是成功地主張其並未侵害專利權來獲得勝訴，故專利的有效性與專利是否侵權這兩點，在專利法上本來就是不同的爭點。
When infringement is the issue, the validity of the patent is not the question to be confronted. In Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993), the Court explained, "A party seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity presents a claim independent of the patentee's charge of infringement." Id., at 96, 113 S.Ct. 1967. It further held noninfringement and invalidity were "alternative grounds" for dismissing the suit. Id., at 98, 113 S.Ct. 1967. And in Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980), the Court explained that an accused infringer "may prevail either by successfully attacking the validity of the patent or by successfully defending the charge of infringement." Id., at 334, 100 S.Ct. 1166. These explanations are in accord with the long-accepted truth — perhaps the axiom — that infringement and invalidity are separate matters under patent law. See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss R. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1365 (C.A.Fed.2003).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1928 (2015).
(2) 由於在訴訟中本來就推定一件專利權是有效的、且要推翻該專利有效性之推定的「舉證責任」為較高程度的「清楚且令人確信之標準」（clear and convincing standard）。因此，若是讓基於「相信專利權是無效的」這點就可以作為「引誘侵權」之抗辯的話，將會輕易地規避了國會對於推定專利權是有效的規定、且需要較高程度才能推翻該推定之標準。
Under the Patent Act, and the case law before its passage, a patent is "presumed valid." § 282(a); id., at 8, 55 S.Ct. 928. That presumption takes away any need for a plaintiff to prove his patent is valid to bring a claim. But if belief in invalidity were a defense to induced infringement, the force of that presumption would be lessened to a drastic degree, for a defendant could prevail if he proved he reasonably believed the patent was invalid. That would circumvent the high bar Congress is presumed to have chosen: the clear and convincing standard. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. ___, ___-___, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2245-2247, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Defendants must meet that standard to rebut the presumption of validity. Ibid.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(3) 更進一步地，法院認為專利無效是一種對於侵權「責任」（liability）的抗辯，並非是對於是否「侵權」（infringement）的抗辯。
Invalidity is an affirmative defense that "can preclude enforcement of a patent against otherwise infringing conduct." 6A Chisum on Patents § 19.01, p. 19-5 (2015). An accused infringer can, of course, attempt to prove that the patent in suit is invalid; if the patent is indeed invalid, and shown to be so under proper procedures, there is no liability. See i4i, supra, at ___-___, 131 S.Ct., at 2247-2248. That is because invalidity is not a defense to infringement, it is a defense to liability. And because of that fact, a belief as to invalidity cannot negate the scienter required for induced infringement.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(4) 那麼若是無法透過「善意相信專利無效」來形成抗辯的話，一個被控引誘侵權人該怎麼處理呢？法院很貼心地在此整理出了一些應對方法，首先而且最重要的，一個被控引誘侵權人可以想辦法取得對該專利權是無效的相關判決。例如：
(i) 他可以向法院提起「確認之訴」（declaratory judgment action），要求判決該專利權是無效的。
(ii) 或是可以依據美國專利法第316條之規定向「專利審判暨上訴委員會」（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，簡稱PTAB）提起「多方再審查」（inter partes review，簡稱IPR）來無效該專利。
(iii) 或是像本案被告Cisco所做的，依據美國專利法第302條之規定向美國專利商標局USPTO提起「單方再審查」（ex parte reexamination）來無效該專利。
(iv) 當然，於訴訟中可以依據美國專利法第282(b)條之規定提出系爭專利無效之抗辯。若該被告成功了，將會被免除侵權責任。
There are also practical reasons not to create a defense based on a good-faith belief in invalidity. First and foremost, accused inducers who believe a patent is invalid have various proper ways to obtain a ruling to that effect. They can file a declaratory judgment action asking a federal court to declare the patent invalid. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007). They can seek inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and receive a decision as to validity within 12 to 18 months. See § 316. Or they can, as Cisco did here, seek ex parte reexamination of the patent by the Patent and Trademark Office. § 302. And, of course, any accused infringer who believes the patent in suit is invalid may raise the affirmative defense of invalidity. § 282(b)(2). If the defendant is successful, he will be immune from liability.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(5) 由於常常要判斷一件專利是否有效會比起判斷專利是否被侵害更為困難；而一個被控引誘侵權人，比起專利不侵害的抗辯、應該會更希望可以較容易地透過「善意相信專利無效」這個抗辯來抵抗「引誘侵權」之指控。故若將「善意相信專利無效」做為一種可對於「引誘侵權」之抗辯的話，那麼將會造成訴訟的過多負擔（burdensome）。
Creating a defense of belief in invalidity, furthermore, would have negative consequences. It can render litigation more burdensome for everyone involved. Every accused inducer would have an incentive to put forth a theory of invalidity and could likely come up with myriad arguments. See Sloan, Think it is Invalid? A New Defense to Negate Intent for Induced Infringement, 23 Fed. Cir. B.J. 613, 618 (2013). And since "it is often more difficult to determine whether a patent is valid than whether it has been infringed," Cardinal, 508 U.S., at 99, 113 S.Ct. 1967, accused inducers would likely find it easier to prevail on a defense regarding the belief of invalidity than noninfringement. In addition the need to respond to the defense will increase discovery costs and multiply the issues the jury must resolve. Indeed, the jury would be put to the difficult task of separating the defendant's belief regarding validity from the actual issue of validity.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929-1930 (2015).
(6) 此外，若是擔心他方當事人所可能提起的「毫無意義案件」（frivolous cases）時，可以想辦法與之對抗的方法為：
(i) 法院有權力對於提起這種「毫無意義案件」的訴訟代理人做出「處罰」（sanction），可參考美國聯邦民事訴訟規則（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure，簡稱FRCP）第11條之相關規定。
(ii) 另外，若是案件勝訴時，可以依據美國專利法第285條之規定，要求法院依其裁量權判決該案件為「特殊案件」（exceptional cases）而應該判決給予勝訴方相關的律師費用。
No issue of frivolity has been raised by the parties in this case, nor does it arise on the facts presented to this Court. Nonetheless, it is still necessary and proper to stress that district courts have the authority and responsibility to ensure frivolous cases are dissuaded. If frivolous cases are filed in federal court, it is within the power of the court to sanction attorneys for bringing such suits. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11. It is also within the district court's discretion to award attorney's fees to prevailing parties in "exceptional cases." 35 U.S.C. § 285; see also Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, ___-___, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1755-1756, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1930-1931 (2015).
3. Scalia大法官針對本案提出了一份不同意見書，其並不認同多數意見所認為的：基於「善意相信專利無效」並無法對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯（I disagree, however, with the Court's holding that good-faith belief in a patent's invalidity is not a defense to induced infringement.），有興趣的讀者可以再閱讀一下其觀點。
小結
1. 本案件聯邦最高法院推翻了先前聯邦巡迴上訴法院之原判決、並發回由其重新進行審理。至於本案回到聯邦巡迴上訴法院後及其後續判決結果如何，就請有興趣的讀者再自行參閱。
2. 因此，於本Commil案之後，被控侵權人並無法基於「善意相信專利無效」來對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯，這點頗值得讀者注意、且值得再深入研究相關的應對方式！
美國聯邦最高法院於2015年5月26日，做出了重要的Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.案判決[附註1]，其認為：被控侵權人並無法基於「善意相信專利無效」（a good-faith belief in invalidity）來對「引誘侵權」（inducement infringement）形成抗辯。因此，這點頗值得讀者注意！
案件背景事實
1. 本案的原告為專利權人Commil USA LLC（以下簡稱”Commil”），推測可能是一家「未實施專利實體」（Non-Practicing Entity，簡稱”NPE”），其擁有一種關於短程無線網路方法之專利。而本案的被告為被控侵權人Cisco Systems, Inc.（以下簡稱”Cisco”），其為製造及銷售無線網路設備的美國大廠。
2. 於2007年，原告Commil在東區德州聯邦地方法院控告被告Cisco所製造及使用的網路設備侵害其專利權，並且被告Cisco藉由所銷售之網路設備引誘其他人使用亦侵害其專利權。系爭專利[附註2]之技術係關於一種介於行動裝置與基地台之間，可提供更快速、更可靠的通訊網路連結之方法（a method of providing faster and more reliable communications between devices and base stations）。
3. 本案件的背景事實並不複雜，但訴訟歷程卻並不簡單。簡而言之，於2010年5月，第一次陪審團認定被告Cisco有直接侵權且判賠金額、但並沒有「引誘侵權」，而原告Commil針對後者提起新審判程序的聲請，且法院准許；於2011年4月，第二次審判關於「引誘侵權」議題時，被告Cisco提出其具有善意相信系爭專利是無效的抗辯，然聯邦地方法院似乎並不認同其可以為一種抗辯，最後，第二次陪審團認定被告Cisco有「引誘侵權」且判賠了高額賠償金。而此同時的2011年，聯邦最高法院恰巧作出了重要的Global-Tech判決，故被告Cisco要求聯邦地方法院應當依據該判決的精神來作出判斷，但並不被允許。因此，被告Cisco不服最後的判決結果，提起上訴。
4. 於2013年6月25日，聯邦巡迴上訴法院作出判決[附註3]，並不認同地方法院之見解，其判決的第二部份認為：證據顯示被控引誘侵權人的「善意相信專利無效」可以否定「引誘侵權」時的意圖要件（… evidence of an accused inducer’s good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement.），而且我們看不出對於「引誘侵權」判定被告的特定意圖之目的時，需要來區隔出「善意相信專利無效」與「善意相信不侵害專利」之不同（We see no principled distinction between a good-faith belief of invalidity and a good-faith belief of non-infringement for the purpose of whether a defendant possessed the specific intent to induce infringement of a patent.）。這次換成原告Commil不服，提起上訴，聯邦最高法院稍後同意審理此案。
案件爭點
本案件的主要爭點就如同相關法條文字內容一樣，看起來很簡短但卻含意深遠，亦即：究竟對於專利的有效性之知悉或是相信，是否會成為美國專利法第271(b)條的「引誘侵權」之要件？（whether knowledge of, or belief in, a patent's validity is required for induced infringement under § 271(b).）
相關法律規定
1. 美國專利法第271(a)條係針對「直接侵權」（direct infringement）之規定，其中，對於此種侵權狀態，被控侵權人的「心智狀態」並不相關（Under this form of liability, a defendant's mental state is irrelevant. Direct infringement is a strict-liability offense. Global-Tech, 563 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2065-2066, n. 2.）。
而依據美國專利法第271(b)條，係針對「引誘侵權」（induced infringement）之規定：任何人積極地引誘使人侵害一件專利，應該負擔起侵權的責任。其中，此種「引誘侵權」狀態與前述的「直接侵權」狀態並不相同，僅僅當該被控引誘侵權人係知悉該件專利、且知悉其引誘行為將會構成專利侵權時，才需要負擔起侵權的責任（In contrast to direct infringement, liability for inducing infringement attaches only if the defendant knew of the patent and that "the induced acts constitute patent infringement." Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2068.）。
35 U.S. Code § 271－Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
2. 另外，美國聯邦最高法院先前於2011年所作出的Global-Tech判決，已經指出：當「引誘侵權」時，原告專利權人必須要證明被控的引誘侵權人係知悉該系爭專利、並且知悉其引誘行為將會構成侵權。
… in an action for induced infringement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the alleged inducer knew of the patent in question and knew the induced acts were infringing.
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2068-2069 (2011).
聯邦最高法院見解
1. 聯邦最高法院並不同意聯邦巡迴上訴法院之見解，其判決結果認為：被控侵權人若是基於「善意相信專利無效」（a good-faith belief in invalidity）並無法對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯。
2. 聯邦最高法院所採取的理由與見解如下：
(1) 基於「相信專利權是否有效」這點，並不能因此而否定第271(b)條「引誘侵權」所需的「明知」（scienter）要件。
The question the Court confronts today concerns whether a defendant's belief regarding patent validity is a defense to a claim of induced infringement. It is not. The scienter element for induced infringement concerns infringement; that is a different issue than validity. Section 271(b) requires that the defendant "actively induce[d] infringement." That language requires intent to "bring about the desired result," which is infringement. Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2065. And because infringement and validity are separate issues under the Act, belief regarding validity cannot negate the scienter required under § 271(b).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1928 (2015).
一個被控侵權人本來就可以依據成功地主張系爭專利無效、抑或是成功地主張其並未侵害專利權來獲得勝訴，故專利的有效性與專利是否侵權這兩點，在專利法上本來就是不同的爭點。
When infringement is the issue, the validity of the patent is not the question to be confronted. In Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993), the Court explained, "A party seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity presents a claim independent of the patentee's charge of infringement." Id., at 96, 113 S.Ct. 1967. It further held noninfringement and invalidity were "alternative grounds" for dismissing the suit. Id., at 98, 113 S.Ct. 1967. And in Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980), the Court explained that an accused infringer "may prevail either by successfully attacking the validity of the patent or by successfully defending the charge of infringement." Id., at 334, 100 S.Ct. 1166. These explanations are in accord with the long-accepted truth — perhaps the axiom — that infringement and invalidity are separate matters under patent law. See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss R. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1365 (C.A.Fed.2003).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1928 (2015).
(2) 由於在訴訟中本來就推定一件專利權是有效的、且要推翻該專利有效性之推定的「舉證責任」為較高程度的「清楚且令人確信之標準」（clear and convincing standard）。因此，若是讓基於「相信專利權是無效的」這點就可以作為「引誘侵權」之抗辯的話，將會輕易地規避了國會對於推定專利權是有效的規定、且需要較高程度才能推翻該推定之標準。
Under the Patent Act, and the case law before its passage, a patent is "presumed valid." § 282(a); id., at 8, 55 S.Ct. 928. That presumption takes away any need for a plaintiff to prove his patent is valid to bring a claim. But if belief in invalidity were a defense to induced infringement, the force of that presumption would be lessened to a drastic degree, for a defendant could prevail if he proved he reasonably believed the patent was invalid. That would circumvent the high bar Congress is presumed to have chosen: the clear and convincing standard. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. ___, ___-___, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2245-2247, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Defendants must meet that standard to rebut the presumption of validity. Ibid.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(3) 更進一步地，法院認為專利無效是一種對於侵權「責任」（liability）的抗辯，並非是對於是否「侵權」（infringement）的抗辯。
Invalidity is an affirmative defense that "can preclude enforcement of a patent against otherwise infringing conduct." 6A Chisum on Patents § 19.01, p. 19-5 (2015). An accused infringer can, of course, attempt to prove that the patent in suit is invalid; if the patent is indeed invalid, and shown to be so under proper procedures, there is no liability. See i4i, supra, at ___-___, 131 S.Ct., at 2247-2248. That is because invalidity is not a defense to infringement, it is a defense to liability. And because of that fact, a belief as to invalidity cannot negate the scienter required for induced infringement.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(4) 那麼若是無法透過「善意相信專利無效」來形成抗辯的話，一個被控引誘侵權人該怎麼處理呢？法院很貼心地在此整理出了一些應對方法，首先而且最重要的，一個被控引誘侵權人可以想辦法取得對該專利權是無效的相關判決。例如：
(i) 他可以向法院提起「確認之訴」（declaratory judgment action），要求判決該專利權是無效的。
(ii) 或是可以依據美國專利法第316條之規定向「專利審判暨上訴委員會」（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，簡稱PTAB）提起「多方再審查」（inter partes review，簡稱IPR）來無效該專利。
(iii) 或是像本案被告Cisco所做的，依據美國專利法第302條之規定向美國專利商標局USPTO提起「單方再審查」（ex parte reexamination）來無效該專利。
(iv) 當然，於訴訟中可以依據美國專利法第282(b)條之規定提出系爭專利無效之抗辯。若該被告成功了，將會被免除侵權責任。
There are also practical reasons not to create a defense based on a good-faith belief in invalidity. First and foremost, accused inducers who believe a patent is invalid have various proper ways to obtain a ruling to that effect. They can file a declaratory judgment action asking a federal court to declare the patent invalid. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007). They can seek inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and receive a decision as to validity within 12 to 18 months. See § 316. Or they can, as Cisco did here, seek ex parte reexamination of the patent by the Patent and Trademark Office. § 302. And, of course, any accused infringer who believes the patent in suit is invalid may raise the affirmative defense of invalidity. § 282(b)(2). If the defendant is successful, he will be immune from liability.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015).
(5) 由於常常要判斷一件專利是否有效會比起判斷專利是否被侵害更為困難；而一個被控引誘侵權人，比起專利不侵害的抗辯、應該會更希望可以較容易地透過「善意相信專利無效」這個抗辯來抵抗「引誘侵權」之指控。故若將「善意相信專利無效」做為一種可對於「引誘侵權」之抗辯的話，那麼將會造成訴訟的過多負擔（burdensome）。
Creating a defense of belief in invalidity, furthermore, would have negative consequences. It can render litigation more burdensome for everyone involved. Every accused inducer would have an incentive to put forth a theory of invalidity and could likely come up with myriad arguments. See Sloan, Think it is Invalid? A New Defense to Negate Intent for Induced Infringement, 23 Fed. Cir. B.J. 613, 618 (2013). And since "it is often more difficult to determine whether a patent is valid than whether it has been infringed," Cardinal, 508 U.S., at 99, 113 S.Ct. 1967, accused inducers would likely find it easier to prevail on a defense regarding the belief of invalidity than noninfringement. In addition the need to respond to the defense will increase discovery costs and multiply the issues the jury must resolve. Indeed, the jury would be put to the difficult task of separating the defendant's belief regarding validity from the actual issue of validity.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1929-1930 (2015).
(6) 此外，若是擔心他方當事人所可能提起的「毫無意義案件」（frivolous cases）時，可以想辦法與之對抗的方法為：
(i) 法院有權力對於提起這種「毫無意義案件」的訴訟代理人做出「處罰」（sanction），可參考美國聯邦民事訴訟規則（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure，簡稱FRCP）第11條之相關規定。
(ii) 另外，若是案件勝訴時，可以依據美國專利法第285條之規定，要求法院依其裁量權判決該案件為「特殊案件」（exceptional cases）而應該判決給予勝訴方相關的律師費用。
No issue of frivolity has been raised by the parties in this case, nor does it arise on the facts presented to this Court. Nonetheless, it is still necessary and proper to stress that district courts have the authority and responsibility to ensure frivolous cases are dissuaded. If frivolous cases are filed in federal court, it is within the power of the court to sanction attorneys for bringing such suits. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11. It is also within the district court's discretion to award attorney's fees to prevailing parties in "exceptional cases." 35 U.S.C. § 285; see also Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, ___-___, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1755-1756, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1930-1931 (2015).
3. Scalia大法官針對本案提出了一份不同意見書，其並不認同多數意見所認為的：基於「善意相信專利無效」並無法對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯（I disagree, however, with the Court's holding that good-faith belief in a patent's invalidity is not a defense to induced infringement.），有興趣的讀者可以再閱讀一下其觀點。
小結
1. 本案件聯邦最高法院推翻了先前聯邦巡迴上訴法院之原判決、並發回由其重新進行審理。至於本案回到聯邦巡迴上訴法院後及其後續判決結果如何，就請有興趣的讀者再自行參閱。
2. 因此，於本Commil案之後，被控侵權人並無法基於「善意相信專利無效」來對「引誘侵權」形成抗辯，這點頗值得讀者注意、且值得再深入研究相關的應對方式！
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
附註1. 美國聯邦最高法院：Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (US Supreme Court, May 26, 2015) 案判決原文，網址：https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-896_l53m.pdf（最後瀏覽日期：2019年11月21日）。
附註2. 系爭專利為美國第6,430,395 B2號專利。
附註3. 聯邦巡迴上訴法院：Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir., June 25, 2013) 案判決原文，網址：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.6-21-2013.1.PDF（最後瀏覽日期：2019年11月21日）。
附註1. 美國聯邦最高法院：Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (US Supreme Court, May 26, 2015) 案判決原文，網址：https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-896_l53m.pdf（最後瀏覽日期：2019年11月21日）。
附註2. 系爭專利為美國第6,430,395 B2號專利。
附註3. 聯邦巡迴上訴法院：Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir., June 25, 2013) 案判決原文，網址：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.6-21-2013.1.PDF（最後瀏覽日期：2019年11月21日）。
