美国上诉法院（承认失误）澄清专利故意侵权和惩罚性赔偿法律标准

今天介绍美国联邦巡回上诉法院2021年9月28日SRI v. Cisco专利侵权案关于故意侵权和惩罚性赔偿及律师费的判决，上诉法院特别澄清了此前判决中对故意侵权(willfull infringement)和惩罚性赔偿(enhanced damages)的法律标准的失误表述。

此案是SRI对Cisco提起的关于6711615和6484203两项美国专利的侵权案。在特拉华地区法院庭审后，陪审团决定Cisco侵权应赔偿23660000美元的合理授权费用，同时认定Cisco故意侵权(willfull infringement)。2017年，地区法院判决采纳了陪审团的故意侵权的决定，并作为惩罚性赔偿将赔偿加倍至5亿7千万美元，同时判Cisco支付原告SRI的律师费。Cisco向联邦巡回上诉法院上诉。

在2019年的上诉判决中，上诉法院取消了地区法院的判决并退回重判。重要的是，上诉法院要求地区法院在”wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior”的法律标准下重新考察故意侵权的判决。在此标准下，地区法院在2020年重新作出判决，判证据不足以支持陪审团故意侵权的决定，取消了惩罚性赔偿，但是维持Cisco支付律师费的判决。同时，地区法院指出，上诉法院给出的”wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior”的故意侵权法律标准高于其它上诉案例给出的法律标准。SRI对故意侵权和惩罚性赔偿的问题提出上诉，Cisco对律师费问题提出上诉。

在此项上诉判决（上诉庭由此前同三位上诉法官组成）中，关于故意侵权，上诉法院表示（委婉承认此前判决失误）无意提高美国*高法院2016年Halo案给出的故意侵权的法律标准，澄清故意侵权的法律标准低于惩罚性赔偿的法律标准：

To eliminate the confusion created by our reference to the language “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith” in Halo, we clarify that it was not our intent to create a heightened requirement for willful infringement. Indeed, that sentence from Halo refers to “conduct warranting enhanced damages,” not conduct warranting a finding of willfulness. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932 (“The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or —indeed— characteristic of a pirate.”) As we said in Eko Brands, “[u]nder Halo, the concept of ‘willfulness’ requires a jury to find no more than deliberate or intentional infringement.” Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933).

在此标准下，上诉法院判此案有足够证据支持陪审团的故意侵权的决定，“推翻”地区法院的判决。

关于专利法35 USC 284条款下的惩罚性赔偿，上诉法院指出：

Although willfulness is a component of enhancement, “an award of enhanced damages does not necessarily flow from a willfulness finding.” (省略案例引用.) Discretion remains with the district court to determine whether the conduct is sufficiently egregious to warrant enhanced damages. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1341 n.13; Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1934 (“Section 284 gives district courts discretion in meting out enhanced damages.”).

上诉法院认为地区法院在故意侵权的前提下判决加倍赔偿不属于滥用自由裁量权(“abuse of discretion”)，因此重新采用地区法院的加倍赔偿判决。

关于专利法35 USC 285条款下的律师费，上诉法院指出：

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” An “exceptional” case is “one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”

上诉法院认为地区法院根据Cisco的抗辩和诉讼行为判支付律师费不属于滥用自由裁量权(“abuse of discretion”)，因此上诉法院维持地区法院的判决。

简单归纳，故意侵权及补偿性赔偿由陪审团决定并由法庭审核，惩罚性赔偿由法庭根据侵权恶意程度酌情决定，律师费由法庭根据诉讼行为酌情决定。作者：王华律师(Howard Wang) 免责声明：版权归原创所有仅供学习参考之用，禁止用于商业用途，部分文章推送时未能及时与原作者取得联系，若来源标错误侵犯到您的权益烦请告知我们将立即删除。