方法專利分離式侵權行為之規範與實證分析：以美國Akamai案判決為中心

Abstract

分離式侵權行為係指複數行為人在未經專利權人的同意下共同實施專利，但無人獨自實施完整的專利發明，而各行為人實施之結果加總後落入該專利範圍。這樣的侵權行為規範爭議主要發生在方法專利。 本文藉由分析聯邦最高法院以及聯邦巡迴上訴法院相關判決，以探討方法專利分離式侵權之內涵及發展。2014年聯邦最高法院推翻聯邦巡迴上訴法院擴張誘引侵權範圍之見解，主張間接侵權仍須以單一行為人構成直接侵權為前提。然而，最高法院並未對於方法專利分離式侵權的判斷方式提出看法，因此仍待更多法院判決的詮釋。 本文將以Akamai案判決為中心，首先介紹方法專利分離式侵權的發展，接著詳細評析聯邦巡迴上訴法院全院聯席及最高法院判決，最後提出本文對於此種侵權態樣的規範建議。本文認為，面對方法專利分離式侵權案件，仍應以BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech案所建立的「指示或控制」為判斷原則，惟須做適度的放寬，使其包含共同侵權及聯營侵權之侵權態樣。此外，專利申請人在撰寫專利時，應以單一行為主體之角度進行專利撰寫，以避免造成舉證不易的結果。

Divided infringement is a term used to describe a situation where multiple actors, working in concert, infringe a patent claim. This type of infringement usually happens in method patents, which involve multiple steps of a process. By looking into decisions made by United States Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, this article explores the nature and evolution of divided infringement. In Akamai, the Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Circuit’s expansion of the inducement infringement, holding instead that inducement must be premised on underlying direct infringement. However, the Court did not review the rule for divided direct infringement under § 271 (a). This article therefore engages a critical analysis of the CAFC’s en banc decision in Akamai by first examining the historical development of divided infringement and relevant court rulings, and second scrutinizing the Federal Circuit's majority opinion and Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai. Finally, this article argues that we should return to ”direct or control” doctrine established in BMC and expand to embrace joint enterprises and collaborative scenarios. Besides, when drafting patent claims, patent applicants should have their core claims targeted toward a single practicing party. This technique could largely avoid divided infringement of method claims.