Re: [閒聊] JH Audio控告1964違反該公司專利

看板Headphone作者TpeHenry (平凡老百姓)時間9年前 (2015/03/30 15:39)推噓15(15推 0噓 4→)

留言19則, 15人參與討論串3/3 (看更多)

※ 引述《SkyF4lL (SK)》之銘言： : 剛剛略讀了一下 : 463並不是包山包海只是前面從耳道耳機到客製化耳機的不同開始說講到客製化深入第一彎曲道是和一般耳道不一樣的地方 : 第八點就是在描述上面的事 : 第九點的條列從a~g 才是真正被侵犯的項目 : g點中提到兩高音單體有相同發聲頻率 : 還有兩高音單體的配置上有消除 harmonic distortion 的設計 : 我推測這兩點是打1964 v8的關鍵 : 第18點就點出JH認為V8和他的463專利有相同設計 : 所以應該不是所謂的暴力攻擊而是V8真的可能有侵犯到 : 以上不負責概略翻譯（鞠躬 : ※ 引述《gameguy (gameguy號：)》之銘言： : : https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/flmd/305579/1-0.html : : 大不列顛語系語言我是看不懂，My English is very poor(笑) : : 463號專利這是什麼，看沒有 : : (看來幾乎包天包海了啊，463這條一旦成立，其他家沒JH同意不能賣有下列但書所寫 : : 的結構的耳機，沒這樣玩的吧) : : 求看的懂得強人翻譯一下，法院文件實在是看沒有。原本這篇文章被我刪除了，我現在再發表了這篇文章，內容與原本大致相同，但最底下有增加了「個人心得」內容。希望原本看到這篇文章的版友現在能再看到，也希望讓各位版友們對此官司有更深入瞭解。我會發表這篇文章主要是讓大家瞭解JH控告1964侵害它們專利權所寫的訴狀到底在寫什麼、控告了什麼，畢竟很多版友對這個訴狀很好奇，但卻又看不懂。以下我會分成三個主題，分別是「專利及法律介紹」、「訴狀的翻譯」及「個人心得」。有興趣的版友們，就往下看吧！若沒興趣的話，就當我這篇是廢文好了。 --------------------------以下是「專利及法律介紹」--------------------- 為什麼不在正文的一開始就先翻譯訴狀呢？這是因為如同有版友在推文中所說「我覺得就算有翻譯也看不懂」。確實，若不懂法律，也不懂專利，即便訴狀是寫中文的，一般人也看得霧煞煞。什麼是專利？專利權的權利就是在在專利說明書的內容，更明確說就是在專利說明書中最末所寫的「Claims」，一旦任何人違反了JH的權益(就是仿冒JH的專利中的Claims的設計)，那就是損害到JH的專利權，JH當然也可以對侵權人提告。例如，以JH這個訴狀中所提到它們的US8897463專利為例，(US8897463專利說明書可從 http://www.google.com/patents/US8897463下載，按網址畫面右上角的「下載PDF」就可下載了)，是否造成侵權的標準就是在US8897463這份專利說明書的第5欄最下面的「 What is claimed is:」所列出來的共16項claims。只是JH控告1964侵權在訴狀中是提出 1964只有侵害了第1項claim而已，沒有侵害到其餘15項，。這也是為什麼訴狀的內容是在比對「V8」與「Claim 1」的內容，就是要說服法官(在美國是陪審團制度，是說服陪審團) V8落入了Claim 1的範圍，而且說服法官是「literally(字義地)」落入Claim 1範圍，簡單說就是V8與Claim 1比對就已經是V8跟Claim 1的「字義」是一樣的，而不是V8跟 Claim 1是「類似的」，兩者是一模一樣的而非類似(或均等)的。我剛剛在網路搜尋了一下，我發現JH這個專利只有在美國提出申請且獲頒專利，沒有在任何其他國家申請，當然也沒有在任何其他國家獲頒專利。專利是屬地主義，也就是說若今天台灣有一家耳機製造商在台灣製造跟JH這份專利一模一樣的產品，JH是沒有權利對台灣這家耳機製造商提告的權利。因為JH和1964兩公司都是位在美國(分別是位在FL州和OR 州，訴狀第1頁下面的「PARTIES」中有寫)，所以JH可對1964提告，JH是控告1964侵權產品進行「製造(made)」、「使用(used)」、「販賣(sold)」、「販賣之要約(offered to sell)」這些行為以致侵害了JH專利，在訴狀第2頁的第5點有寫。所謂「販賣之要約 (offered to sell)」就是指已經在進行銷售了，雖然還沒賣出去，但已經進行銷售就是一種販賣之要約(offered to sell)(例如廣告宣傳就是)。我原以為JH這個專利除了在美國提出申請，可能也會在世界上有耳機市場的其他國家提出申請，但根據我的查詢結果，是沒有的，JH的這個發明就是只有在美國申請且獲頒專利。若有在其他國家申請且獲頒專利的話，那麼訴訟就更複雜了，JH一定也會在其他國家控告 1964在該其他國家侵害它們的專利。其實，這是很複雜的，每個國家的專利系統與標準雖然類似，法律流程雖然也雷同，但仍是有不一樣的地方，何況法官也不是同一人，訴訟代理人更不會是同一人。在這麼多個國家同時進行訴訟，會很累人。另外，美國的法院各州法院大致上有著「初審－上訴－終審」的三級系統，這份訴狀是呈送到地方法院(District Court)(訴狀的第1頁最上面的粗黑體字標題或郵戳就可得知)，而且是位在FL州的地方法院，因此只是在初審階段。換句話說，就是這個專利訴訟才正剛開始要打而已啦，完全都還沒進入到白熱階段呢！ --------------------------以下是「訴狀的翻譯」----------------------- 我是將訴狀pdf檔利用文字辨識轉成文字檔(不然我無法轉貼到PTT啊)，所以下面的英文辨識可能會出錯，且排版一定跟原始pdf檔不一樣，詳細正確英文請見原始pdf檔。又，我是在各個英文段落的正下方將此段落翻譯成中文，但是我沒有全部的段落都翻譯，我只是翻譯某些段落，我也沒逐字翻譯(有時只是大略解釋這一段落的意思)，尚請各位諒解。 NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. (這是根據Title 35 of the United States Code所提出的專利侵害請求) 註：Title 35 of the United States Code就是美國專利法。 PARTIES 2. Plaintiff JH Audio is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2515 East Semoran Blvd., Apopka, FL 32703. (原告JH公司位在FL州) 3. Defendant 1964 Ears is an Oregon limited liability company with its principal place of business at 7025 N Lombard St, Ste 100, Portland, OR 97203. (被告1964公司位在OR州) JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). (根據28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a)，您這間地方法院對此控訴具有司法管轄權) 註：JH就是在解釋我是根據什麼法律可在FL州的您這間地方法院提起侵權訴訟，您這間法院必須受理。 5. Personal jurisdiction over Defendant is proper in this Court because Defendant does business in this State, has significant contacts with this State, has made, used, sold, or offered to sell infringing products in this State, has purposefully shipped or caused to be shipped infringing products into this State, or has committed acts in this State that are the subject of the counts set forth herein. (被告在FL州經營事業，且對於侵權產品進行「製造(made)」、「使用(used)」、「販賣(sold)」、「販賣之要約(offered to sell)」這些行為以致侵害了JH專利。) 6. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and/or l400(b). CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of U.S. Patent No.8,897,463) 7. JH Audio owns United States Patent No. 8,897,463, entitled "Dual High Frequency Driver Canalphone System," which issued on November 25,2014 (the "'463 patent"). A copy of the '463 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (JH擁有在2014年11月25日獲頒專利且發明名稱為"Dual High Frequency Driver Canalphone System"的US8897463專利。此份專利的專利說明書在此以「附件A」附在本訴狀作為附件。) 8. As described in the '463 patent: There are many different types of personal listening devices such as headphones, earbuds, canalphones, and/or the like. Headphones are personal listening devices that are held in close proximately to the ear by some support system. Earbuds are small personal listening devices that are positioned directly in front of the ear canal and are substantially smaller than a person's outer ear. Similarly, canalphones are personal listening devices that are substantially smaller than a person's outer ear, but they differ from earbuds in that they are placed directly in one end of the ear canal. Both earbuds and canalphones are held in positioned by friction between the ear and the device rather than the support system found in most headphones. Canalphones are also referred to as in-ear monitors due to how the canalphone is worn by a listener. Some canalphones also serve as earplugs due to the way the canalphone limits noise external to the canalphone from entering the ear canal. '463 patent, coL 1, Ins. 10-26. (耳機有headphone, earbud, canalphone等各種類型。也可將canalphone作為耳塞。) 註：其實這個段落對於訴訟沒啥太大幫助或沒啥太大意義，可以說這個段落只是一個「簡介」，告訴法官說耳道式耳機(canalphone)是什麼，畢竟法官和陪審團不見得每個人都瞭解耳機，更別說耳機有這麼多分類。何況，V8是一支耳道式耳機(canalphone)，法官和陪審團都懂什麼是耳道式耳機嗎？更別提是否瞭解耳道式耳機的構造了？原告總要先寫一點點東西來簡介一下，後面才能切入正題。您一定聽過台灣有恐龍法官，就是因為這些恐龍法官不是那些特殊業界(例如在這裡就是指耳機)的工作者，法官不懂爭議點在哪，甚至判決寫得離譜，所以判決書內容常讓人覺得這些法官就是恐龍法官。 9. Claim 1 of the '463 patent claims a canalphone with: (a) a canalphone housing; (b) a first low frequency driver carried within the canalphone housing; (c) a first midrange frequency driver carried within the canalphone housing; (d) a second low frequency driver carried within the canalphone housing; (e) a second midrange frequency driver carried within the canalphone (f) a first high frequency driver carried within the canalphone housing; and (g) (part 1) a second high frequency driver carried within the canalphone (part 2) the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver each produce similar frequencies, (part 3) the first high frequency driver and second high frequency driver are positioned where the oscillation of one interacts with the oscillation of the other to reduce harmonic distortion, (part 4) and the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver produce distinguishable frequencies to a person using the system comprising 12.000 hertz to 18,000 hertz. 註：這一段落是寫出JH專利的Claim 1，畢竟要控告1964侵害JH專利的Claim 1，總是要告訴法官JH專利的Claim 1是在保護什麼專利產品及什麼結構，並藉此在後面將V8與這一段落的Claim 1進行比較。 10. Defendant has and continues to make, use, offer to sell, or sell canalphones in this State and District and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant's canalphone products include the V8, the V6-Stage, and the V6 models. (被告持續在本州或美國其他地方對耳道式耳機進行製造、使用、販賣之要約、或販賣。被告的產品包括V8、V6-Stage、及V6系列。) 11. Defendant maintains a publicly available website at www.1964ears.com through which it offers for sale various products to the public, including residents of this State and District. The products offered for sale through Defendant's website include the V8, V6-Stage and V6 products. See www.1964ears.comlproducts. (被告維持了一個任何人都可進入此網站www.1964ears.com的公開，這網址對公眾(包括本州及本區)進行了有關各種產品的販賣之要約。這些進行販賣之要約的產品包括了V8 、V6-Stage、及V6系列。) 註：如我上面所解釋，所謂「販賣之要約(offered to sell)」就是指已經在進行銷售了，雖然還沒賣出去，但已經進行銷售就是一種販賣之要約(offered to sell)(例如廣告宣傳就是)，在這一段落就是指已經在1964網站上進行公開銷售，若V8與JH專利比對是一樣則販賣之要約也會構成侵權。 12. The images below compare Fig. 2 of the '463 patent, which depicts JH Audio's claimed invention, with Defendant's V8 product. The bottom image of Defendant's V8 product shows the presence of various components contained within an outer shell. (以下的圖是「JH專利說明書第2圖(其繪示出在Claim 1裡頭所主張的專利)」與「被告 V8」之間的比較) 13. In addition to the images above, Defendant describes its V8 product on its website as follows: The V8 is handcrafted with eight balanced armature drivers in each earpiece coupled to a three-way crossover that yields unrivaled sonic purity. Featuring a Triple Bore design, they allow for the IEM's high, mid and low frequency sound components to be channeled through separate passages in the sound port. See www.1964ears.comlproductlI964-V8-Custom-In-Ear-Monitor. (除了上面的圖，被告在其公司網址描述了V8如下：….) 14. Defendant also lists various "Features" and "Tech Specs" for the V8 on its website, including that the V8 has "hard acrylic shells," "Four Low, Two Mid, Two High Precision Tuned Armatures", and "Freq. Response: 10Hz - 20 kHz." (被告亦在其公司網址列出了V8的特徵(Features)與技術規格(Tech Specs)，包括有… .) 15. Defendant's V8 canalphone product directly infringes at least claim 1 of the '463 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (被告的V8耳道式耳機直接侵害JH專利的至少Claim 1，無論是字義上或均等上) 註：專利侵害有分成「直接侵害」與「間接侵害」。因為JH控告1964的V8是與Claim 1 的「字義」一樣，所以是直接侵害。若沒有完全一樣，則只是「均等」，就是兩者是構造類似，但在字義上不完全一樣。其實要比對是否有侵害，也是有一套鑑定標準，很複雜的，我也懶得說了。 16. The above images of Defendant's V8 product show the earpieces have outer shell and Defendant describes its V8 product as having "Features" that include "hard acrylic shells". The V8 shell is a "housing". Thus, Defendant's V8 canalphone product has, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, a housing, satisfying element (a) of claim 1 of the '463 patent. 註：第16~20段落，都是在比較V8與Claim 1中所列的各元件，反正簡單說，JH在第 16~20段落是在說明V8落入Claim 1所主張請求保護的專利權範圍。 17. Defendant describes its V8 product as having "eight balanced armature drivers in each earpiece," with "Features" including "Four Low, Two Mid, Two High Precision Tuned Armatures." "Armatures" are "drivers". Thus, Defendant's V8 canalphone product has, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, two each of low, midrange and high frequency drivers within the housing, satisfying elements (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)(Part 1) of claim 1 of the '463 patent. 18. There is no indication or reason to believe that Defendant's V8 product's "Two High Precision Tuned Armatures" produce dissimilar frequencies. Thus, the two high frequency drivers in Defendant's V8 product, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, produce similar frequencies, satisfying element (g)(Part 2) of claim 1 of the '463 patent. 19. Defendant describes the V8 product as "tuned" and calls its drivers "Tuned Armatures". Thus, the two high frequency drivers in Defendant's V8 product, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, are positioned in such a way that the oscillation of one interacts with the oscillation of the other to reduce harmonic distortion, satisfying element (g)(Part 3) of claim 1 of the '463 patent. 20. Defendant describes its V8 product as having "Tech Specs" that include "Freq. Response: 10Hz - 20 kHz." Thus, the two high frequency drivers in Defendant's V8 product, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, produce distinguishable frequencies to a person using the system having 12,000 hertz to 18,000 hertz, satisfying element (g)(Part 4) of claim 1 of the '463 patent. 21. Because Defendant's V8 product is a system that contains each element of claim 1 of the '463 patent it infringes the '463 patent. (由於被告的V8產品是一個包含JH專利的Claim 1中各元件的系統，所以被告侵害了JH 專利。) 22. At least Defendant's V6-Stage and V6 products also infringe the '463 patent. (被告的V6-Stage及V6系列亦侵害JH專利。) 註：JH所寫的這一段沒啥太大意義，因為JH雖然說V6亦侵害JH專利，但JH在訴狀中毫無提出V6與JH專利之間的比較，法官與陪審團不可能單純只因這一段話做出V6「侵害」專利的判決。 JH寫這一段或許有其他意義在，例如：可能在後續的開庭中，JH會呈上有關 V6與JH專利之間的比較，在這一段JH只是先做個開場白而已。但我是舉例而已啦…實際上也可能只是亂寫一通嚇嚇對方…. 我不是原告，所以我真的不知道為啥要寫這一段。其實法律訴訟有時候很好玩，即便JH只是寫了這麼簡單的一段落，或許1964自己就在後續開庭將V6與JH專利之間的比較表呈上了，然而JH卻又在這個比較表中抓一堆瑕疵去指證說1964的這個比較表是有瑕疵問題的，實際上V6與JH專利是一樣的。反正，講白話一點，任何可能都有。但有寫就有機會，不過若只單純寫這一段話，通常是沒啥幫助的。 23. Defendant's infringement of the '463 patent will continue unless and until enjoined by the Court. (被告的侵權行為將會持續，除非法院禁止了這樣的行為。) 24. Defendant's infringement of the '463 patent has injured and will continue to injure JH Audio as long as such infringement continues. JH Audio is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. (被告已經損害且將持續損害JH，只要這樣的侵權行為持續。JH有權利去適當地回復這樣所受到的損害，以補償因為侵權所造成的損失，但賠償金不可少於合理的權利金。) 註：權利金講白話一點，就是授權金。就是JH授權給1964去對JH專利中所發明出的耳機進行製造、使用、販賣之要約、或販賣，這樣的授權金。 25. No later than upon receipt of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the '463 patent. Defendant's infringement of the '463 patent with such knowledge is willful and deliberate. (在收到此訴狀之前，被告原本就知悉有'463這份專利的存在。所以，被告在以「原本就知悉」的前提下，被告的侵權行為是故意的。) 註：損害賠償金有一定的準則去計算應該賠償多少錢，這我就懶得說了。但若JH可證明1964是原本就知悉有'463這份專利的存在卻還「故意」去繼續侵權，那麼賠償金是可因為「故意」而最多再乘以三倍的。在美國是如此，在台灣也是如此。台灣專利法第97 條是如此規定：「依前項規定，侵害行為如屬故意，法院得因被害人之請求，依侵害情節，酌定損害額以上之賠償。但不得超過已證明損害額之三倍。」 RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JH Audio respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant and against each of its subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief: (依此，原告JH請求法院對被告及其子公司、母公司、分公司、執行長、員工等做出以下判決：) A. The entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for infringement of the '463 patent; (做出有利於原告以及被告侵害專利的判決。) B. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the '463 patent by Defendant and its subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it; (永久禁止被告及其子公司、母公司、分公司、執行長、員工等再繼續侵害JH專利。) C. An award of damages against Defendant adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and interest and costs; (法院能授予對於補償原告的適當的賠償金這樣的請求，但賠償金不可少於合理的權利金與金額，如35 U.S.C. § 284所規定的金額。) D. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to Plaintiff of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and (做出此案是一個特例的裁決，而授予合理的訴訟代理費用的請求，如35 U.S.C. § 285所規定的。) E. Such other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled under the law and any other and further relief that the Court or a jury may deem just and proper. (法院或陪審團認為恰當與適當之原告有權利提出的其他救濟。) JURY DEMAND JH Audio demands trial by jury. (JH請求由陪審團進行訴訟的進行) Dated: December 19, 2014 Respectfully submitted, --------------------------以下是「個人心得」------------------------- 就我個人觀感，我覺得這份訴狀是一份不完整，但寫得不錯的訴狀。為什麼說不完整呢? 訴狀有提到V8的結構嗎？(確實有，但那些結構都是從1964網站得知。真實且詳細的結構是啥，從訴狀裡看不出來。) 實際上，這份訴狀是在比對「JH專利的Claim 1」與「V8的公司網站宣傳用詞」，根本就沒去比對到「V8的確切詳細結構」。又，訴狀有提到請求的賠償金額是多少嗎？ (也有，但很模糊，訴狀只是提到賠償金不可少於權利金。但這到底是10萬？還是100萬？還是1億或數億呢？若JH告贏了，法官到底最後要判多少賠償金給JH呢？) 為什麼我覺得是不錯呢？有特別去觀察「US8897363專利說明書」與「訴狀」中的日期的版友們，應該可看出JH專利是在2014年11月25日獲頒專利(專利說明書第1頁右上角有寫 )，而訴狀是在2014年12月19日送進法院(訴狀第1頁的郵戳或末頁大約簽名處那邊有寫)。就是說，JH在拿到專利後，在短短不到一個月內(其實只有三個星期)就可以知道V8結構是啥(或許JH有先買一個V8回來解剖瞭解V8結構吧)、評估好是否要告1964、找到律師且與律師討論好V8與JH專利之間結構差異、寫好訴狀內容、要在訴狀送件前先經過JH的各級高階主管審閱過、JH公司內部還要先開會討論。三個星期要做這麼多事，所以我覺得雖然不完整，但能有一份條理清晰、聚焦精確的訴狀寫好送進法院，我覺得已經非常不錯了。另外，訴狀寫得不完整不好嗎？我覺得在任何一件訴訟過程中的原告，若夠專業，應該要像「擠牙膏」一樣慢慢從簡介開始漸漸切入到主體再到重點。陪審團成員(juror)都是「隨機抽籤」出來的美國公民，他們有可能是歷史老師、銀行櫃臺小姐、餐廳老闆、出版社小姐 (當然也可能會是耳機製造廠的員工，但機率比較小，畢竟耳機製造廠在美國有很多家嗎?) 反正，陪審團成員通常都不會是瞭解耳機的公民，即便瞭解，佔陪審團全部成員中的比例也必定非常低。所以，JH這份訴狀寫得有點簡略，但其實這樣對於外行人來說，反而外行人會比較容易看得懂訴狀在寫啥，陪審團員也比較容易看懂。連我們耳機版的版友們，不懂法律，都可大致上猜出訴訟重點在哪。所以我覺得JH這份訴狀雖不完整，但這是很不錯的方向。之後JH的補充狀可再更進一步去切入到主體，然後再隨著一次又一次的出庭再使進一步的 JH補充狀說到進入重點。其實說白話一點，就是隨著訴訟流程的進行，慢慢在教育陪審團員什麼是耳機、耳機構造是由啥構成、這件侵權官司的爭點在哪。所以，其實「擠牙膏式」的方式打這場官司才是真的比較好，如我上面所說明。而且，從 JH這份訴狀可知侵權官司才剛開始打而已，若在第一次送進法院的訴狀裡頭就提到了一堆名詞(諸如耳道式耳機、單體、驅動單元、共振(Claim 1裡頭有提到oscillation這個字) 、頻率)，就算陪審團員大致上都看得懂訴狀內容，但會不會在官司一開始就使訴狀寫了數十頁內容而讓人且陪審團員和法官看不出重點在哪(就是失焦了)？ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.222.168.225 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Headphone/M.1427701146.A.FD4.html

推

houh0316

03/30 15:56, , 1^F

03/30 15:56, 1^F

※ 編輯: TpeHenry (61.222.168.225), 03/30/2015 16:06:35

推

a26513323

03/30 16:08, , 2^F

03/30 16:08, 2^F

→

gameguy

03/30 16:13, , 3^F