Voda v. Cordis
These foreign affiliates have not been joined to this action. To prevent confusion, we refer to the defendant-appellant as “Cordis U.S.”
Voda 是美國人，而 Cordis是美國企業。
於一訴訟中，Voda在美國以美國專利向Cordis提訴，隨後地方法院同意他修改訴狀，加入了外國的專利， Cordis向CAFC上訴。
CAFC的多數法官分別以下列的理由，撤銷地方法院的決定。
a. Treaties as the “supreme law of the land”
b. Comity and relations between sovereigns
c. Judicial economy
d. Convenience
e. Fairness
f. Section 1367(c) abuse of discretion
其中，於公平性中，CAFC提到以下事由。
e. Fairness
Therefore, assuming arguendo that the act of state doctrine applies, the doctrine would prevent our courts from inquiring into the validity of a foreign patent grant and require our courts to djudicate patent claims regardless of validity or enforceability. Given the number of U.S. patent cases that we resolve on validity or enforceability as opposed to infringement grounds, exercising such urisdiction could be fundamentally unfair to the alleged infringer where, as one amicus curiae points out, “the patent is in fact invalid and the defendant would be excused from liability on that basis in a foreign forum.” Voda has not shown in this case that the validity of the foreign patents would not be at issue. Indeed, Cordis U.S. asserts otherwise.
由於國家行為原則，美國的法院不能夠審專利的有效性，因此對被告不公平。於本案中，Voda 無法證明外國專利的有效性不是爭點，相反地Cordis U.S.卻聲稱外國專利的有效性是爭點。
個人意見：由此段看來，Voda v. Cordis 的既決效力，不必然會及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟。或者說，CAFC的多數法官也沒有積極地反對在美國進行「以外國專利為有效之前提下」的專利侵權訴訟。
CAFC的少數法官（Newman法官）提及執行力不會是爭點。
Enforcement Is Not An Issue
There is no issue raised by either party concerning enforcement by a foreign court of the district court's potential decision concerning any of the Voda foreign patents. This case does not raise issues of comity, treaty, and diplomacy, when judgments are sought to be enforced in another country.
關於「審理外國專利的有效性及是否侵權」事宜，是否會違反國際條約，Newman法官以下見解的見解是，“不違反”。
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization
None of these treaties prohibits resolution by a national court of private disputes that include foreign patent rights. The question is not as presented by the panel majority, whether any treaty imposes "an international duty" on a nation's courts to render decision concerning foreign patents. The question is whether any treaty prohibits a national court from resolving a dispute between entities under the personal jurisdiction of the court. No treaty bars such dispute resolution.
最後Newman法官又提及，已經有外國法院在審理美國的專利。
Courts in other countries have not refrained from applying foreign patent law, including United States law. A Japanese court recently applied the United States doctrine of equivalents in a suit between Japanese companies that included questions of infringement of United States patents, in K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002
(Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003). All nations have recognized their obligation to provide a judicial forum to address disputes involving their citizens; no warrant has been shown to remove foreign patents from this purview.
個人意見：
Newman法官所說的判決，是東京地方法院的判決，東京地方法為會如此判，大概是因為前年之日本最高法院的決定。不過先前是日本最高法院的判決，其效力僅及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟，但於本判決中，東京地方法院更是大膽地跨出一步，即使是專利有效性也一併審。
K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002 (Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003).
【更新】本案有少數法官（Newman法官）提反對意見，Newman法官有提及一個東京地方法院的判決，提醒多數法官外國法院已在審美國的專利有效性及侵權訴訟了，東京地方法院為會如此判，是依據該案之前一年之日本最高法院的決定。不過先前之日本最高法院的判決，其效力僅及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟，然而東京地方法院更是大膽地跨出一步，判決即使是專利有效性也一併審。其理由在於：侵權訴訟中的專利有效抗辨判決，僅是相對效，不會損害國外之專利的有效性。
K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002 (Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003).
沒有留言:
張貼留言