每日IP英文第290期：
本文是加拿大與美國(guó)專利侵權(quán)訴訟損害賠償規(guī)則的對(duì)比，從中我們可以了解兩國(guó)家法律的異同，例如，兩國(guó)損害賠償?shù)钠谙尴嗤际瞧鹪V前六年，但是美國(guó)主張專利產(chǎn)品的侵權(quán)賠償，還要有通知的要求，即產(chǎn)品上標(biāo)注有專利號(hào)，且起訴前發(fā)出警告函；加拿大不需要計(jì)算侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的分?jǐn)?，而美?guó)按照最小可銷售單元SSPPU計(jì)算賠償數(shù)額；兩國(guó)確定合理的許可費(fèi)率都基于類似的因素，如Georgia Pacific因素等；美國(guó)不能主張被訴侵權(quán)人的利潤(rùn)，而加拿大可以；加拿大獲得授權(quán)前的補(bǔ)償更容易；加拿大沒(méi)有三倍損害賠償。中國(guó)專利侵權(quán)損害賠償規(guī)則其實(shí)還比較粗放，實(shí)務(wù)中也面臨較多問(wèn)題，其實(shí)這是全世界的難題，看起來(lái)加拿大的制度也不是多么精細(xì)，當(dāng)然，司法環(huán)境、法律思維的不同也會(huì)對(duì)專利保護(hù)帶來(lái)巨大的影響。了解這些國(guó)家的法律規(guī)定，對(duì)于深刻理解中國(guó)專利損害賠償制度非常有幫助，美國(guó)的制度未必是最好的，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)客觀的審視這些制度的利弊，摸索出適合中國(guó)的制度。
Show Me the Money! Canadian v. US Monetary Remedies for Patent InfringementNovember 11 2019 | Gowling WLG - Selena KimIn recent years, Canada has become an increasingly attractive jurisdiction for patentees to obtain and enforce their patent rights. In terms of monetary remedies, as compared to the United States, there is often greater flexibility in Canada in crafting compensation for infringement. Despite our smaller market, the size of damages and profits awards can, at times, end up being larger in Canada.This article is targeted to those who have some familiarity with patent infringement remedies available in the United States. It is intended to provide our observations on the key differences we have noted in corresponding Canadian cases.1. Damages determination – Underlying rationale is similarWhen it comes to ascertaining patent damages in Canada and the United States, the basic premise is similar. The goal is to award the patentee with an amount that reflects the difference between (i) the financial position the patentee would have been in but for the infringement, and (ii) the actual financial position of the patentee reflecting the negative consequences of the infringement.For instance, if the patentee can establish that but for the defendant’s infringement, it would have made the sales achieved by the defendant, the measure of the damages is the patentee’s lost profits. Lost profits are determined by deducting all costs, fixed or variable, that the patentee would have incurred to achieve its sales.Where the patentee does not itself practice the patent or cannot otherwise establish that it would have achieved the defendant’s sales, then the damages take the form of a reasonable royalty. If the defendant can prove that it could and would have used a non-infringing alternative, or that unrelated factors were responsible for some or all of its sales, the damages amount may be reduced.Additional categories of damages may be recovered in Canada such as convoyed sales (sales of complementary products tied to the patented product that were lost due to the defendant’s infringement) and price erosion or suppression (if the patentee had to lower its prices or suppress its planned price increases due to illegal competition from the defendant). These principles are common between both countries.As well, general limitation periods for damages are the same for patent actions in Canada and the United States - six years before the commencement of the court action.2. Apportionment of damages between infringing/non-infringing parts – Not in CanadaWhat happens if the infringed feature is one of multiple features contained in the product as a whole? In Canada, the concept of apportionment of damages based on infringing and non-infringing parts of the product has not been used to reduce damages payable by the defendant. This aspect of Canadian law may arise in part from the concept of patent infringement as a tort, and the fundamental premise that a plaintiff in tort may recover 100% of its loss even if the defendant’s negligence was not the sole cause of its injuries. As well, when considering the analysis of whether the patentee would have achieved the defendant’s sales – such considerations may already be taken into account at the earlier stage when the patentee proves entitlement to damages.Canadian law could develop further on this point if a defendant presents a case having the right evidence. In the meantime, apportionment for such reasons has not formed an established part of Canadian damages law.This is quite unlike the situation in the United States, where apportionment is the rule rather than the exception. For example, when calculating damages amounts, the base of sales that the US Court will typically use will be based on the “Smallest Saleable Patent Practising Unit” (SSPPU), which is the smallest saleable product that reads on the patent claims. Even within the SSPPU, further apportionment may be required between patented and unpatented portions. This can result in a significant reduction in the ultimate damages amount awarded in the United States.3. Reasonable royalty calculations – Similar approachesReasonable royalties may be used to determine the damages payable to a successful patentee when the patentee cannot establish it would have made those sales achieved by the defendant.In both Canada and the United States, the exercise of determining the reasonable royalty rate is similar. The rate is determined by constructing a hypothetical negotiation between the parties as of the date of first infringement, assuming that both are behaving reasonably and are willing parties to the transaction. The courts conduct a multi-factor analysis to determine what rate the parties would have likely arrived at. In the United States, these are called the “Georgia Pacific” factors, and include consideration of factors such as past royalty rates charged by the patentee, rates paid by the defendant for comparable licenses, any exclusivity or other restrictions on territory, and the commercial relationship between the parties.In Canada, a similar multi-factor analysis is undertaken to determine what royalty rate would result from negotiations between a willing licensor and a willing licensee, with the exercise bracketed by two endpoints: the hypothetical licensor’s minimum willingness to accept and the hypothetical licensee’s maximum willingness to pay. The date of the negotiation is also assumed to be the first date of infringement in Canada.However, there is one key difference: in the United States, the amount arrived at through a reasonable royalty analysis may still need to be apportioned in accordance with the SSPPU doctrine. This concept has not arisen in Canada in the reasonable royalty jurisprudence. Arguably, if a patented part only formed an insignificant portion of the product, this factor would already be taken into account in the course of the hypothetical negotiation to determine the royalty rate.4. Only in Canada: Availability of infringer’s profitsThe Canadian Patent Act provides a patentee who has proven infringement at Court the ability to elect between its damages and the infringer’s profits. This is a key differentiator compared to the United States, whose corresponding statute provides entitlement to damages or reasonable royalties, but makes no provision for recovery of the defendant’s profits.Profits are an equitable remedy in Canada. Courts, therefore, retain the discretion to decide that a poorly behaved patentee is not entitled to make this election, in which case the patentee will be limited to the damages it can prove. However, in the regular course, successful patentees are provided the option of choosing the defendant’s profits, which can provide significant benefits in the litigation:- More $$$: The defendant’s profits are usually higher than the patentee’s damages. This may be in part because of the different rules on deductability of costs for a disgorgement of profits (from defendant) analysis versus a lost (patentee’s) profits analysis, as described below.
- Fewer Deductible Costs: there are limitations on what types of costs can be deducted from the defendant’s revenues in order to arrive at profits. Unlike when deducting costs for the purposes of calculating a patentee’s lost profits as a measure of the damage it suffered, in calculating the profits of an infringer, only those costs that were incurred directly to make or offer the infringing product or service are deductible (often called “variable costs”). No costs that would have been incurred otherwise (i.e. “fixed costs”) may be used to offset revenues. This is because the Court seeks to disgorge any benefit that the infringer obtained from illegal use of the patented invention. Allowing a deduction for fixed costs could mean the infringer indirectly benefits from the infringement.
- Evidentiary burden: When profits have been elected, the patentee is required to prove the defendant’s revenues, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove any deductions from those revenues to arrive at the portion thereof that is considered profit. Evidence-wise, from the patentee’s perspective, this can be more straightforward than proving damages and requires less financial disclosure from the patentee.
- Extraterritorial Profits on Product Made in Canada: Where there has been manufacturing in Canada which infringes the Canadian patent, even if that product is later sold outside of Canada, the associated foreign profits may be claimed in the Canadian case.
There are other complexities to profits analyses which are beyond the scope of this article, such as accounting for non-infringing alternatives. However, having the option of choosing the infringer’s profits offers a significant advantage in Canadian patent litigation.5. Pre-grant damages: Broader entitlement in CanadaIn Canada, the patentee is entitled to compensation for infringing activities that occurred between the publication of the patent application and issuance of the patent. This compensation takes the form of a reasonable royalty. There is no notice requirement and as long as the defendant’s product infringed at least one claim of the granted patent, the patentee is entitled to compensation.In the United States, this remedy is more limited. The patent owner can recover damages prior to grant if two conditions are met: the defendant had actual notice of the published patent application, and the invention claimed in the published application is substantially identical to that in the final patent.6. Loser pays in Canada: Recovery of legal feesUnlike the United States, where recovery of legal fees is only provided in limited situations such as proven inequitable conduct by the patentee, Canada operates on a “l(fā)oser pays” model. If successful in the action, a Canadian patentee will typically be awarded its full disbursements, such as its expert fees, plus a sizeable portion of its legal fees. In cases where the Court is satisfied that the defendant engaged in inequitable conduct or is otherwise deserving of sanction, the scope of recovery can be increased significantly.7. No notice requirement in CanadaIn Canada, the successful patentee’s entitlement to remedies starts from the time the infringer started infringing in Canada (subject to the six year limitation period), not from the time of notice.This is not necessarily the case with patented products in the United States. Where a physical product is made under a patent, to recover damages for infringement prior to filing the lawsuit, the patented article must be marked with the patent number, or a warning letter must have been sent.8. No treble damages framework in CanadaThis is one area where the potential remedies are generally higher in the US. In cases of proven wilful infringement, US courts have the statutory authority to award three times the amount of general damages.Canadian courts do have discretion to award aggravated or punitive damages, but the situations in which these are awarded in Canada are rare. However, recently there have been more substantial punitive damage awards in cases of wilful infringement, including a punitive damage award that was double the compensatory damage award. These cases may be the start of a trend towards higher punitive damage awards in Canada.The distinctions between the Canadian remedies framework for patent infringement as compared to other jurisdictions like the United States provide further reasons to include Canada in a patent protection and enforcement strategy. In particular, the relative lack of apportionment of damages, availability of profits, and legal fees to the successful party can amount to significant strategic advantages when litigating in Canada.
把錢拿出來(lái)！加拿大和美國(guó)針對(duì)專利侵權(quán)的金錢賠償比對(duì)November 11 2019 | Gowling WLG - Selena Kim近年來(lái)，加拿大已成為專利權(quán)人獲取和執(zhí)行其專利權(quán)的越來(lái)越有吸引力的司法管轄區(qū)。與美國(guó)相比，就金錢救濟(jì)而言，加拿大在擬定侵權(quán)賠償方面通常具有更大的靈活性。盡管我們的市場(chǎng)較小，但賠償金和利潤(rùn)裁定的金額有時(shí)可能最終在加拿大變大。本文針對(duì)的是那些對(duì)美國(guó)現(xiàn)有的專利侵權(quán)救濟(jì)有一定了解的人。旨在提供我們對(duì)我們?cè)谙鄳?yīng)的加拿大案例中注意到的主要差異的觀察。關(guān)于確定加拿大和美國(guó)的專利損失，基本前提是相似的。目的是授予專利權(quán)人一定數(shù)額，以反映以下兩者之間的差額：（i）專利權(quán)人原本在侵權(quán)中的財(cái)務(wù)狀況；以及（ii）專利權(quán)人的實(shí)際財(cái)務(wù)狀況在反映侵權(quán)的負(fù)面影響。例如，如果專利權(quán)人可以確定，但就被告侵權(quán)而言，本來(lái)可以使被告實(shí)現(xiàn)銷售，則損害賠償?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)是專利權(quán)人的利潤(rùn)損失。利潤(rùn)損失是通過(guò)扣除專利權(quán)人為實(shí)現(xiàn)其銷售而應(yīng)承擔(dān)的所有固定或可變成本來(lái)確定的。如果專利權(quán)人本身沒(méi)有實(shí)踐專利或不能以其他方式確定專利會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)被告的銷售，則損害賠償采取合理的使用費(fèi)形式。如果被告能證明自己可以并且會(huì)使用非侵權(quán)替代品，或者與之無(wú)關(guān)的因素是其部分或全部銷售的原因，則損害賠償額可能會(huì)減少。在加拿大，可能還會(huì)追回其他種類的損害賠償，例如委托銷售（與專利產(chǎn)品相關(guān)的互補(bǔ)產(chǎn)品的銷售，由于被告侵權(quán)而損失）和價(jià)格侵蝕或壓制（如果專利權(quán)人必須降低價(jià)格或壓制其計(jì)劃由于被告的非法競(jìng)爭(zhēng)導(dǎo)致價(jià)格上漲）。這些原則在兩國(guó)之間是共同的。同樣，在加拿大和美國(guó)，專利訴訟的一般損害賠償期限是相同的-提起訴訟之前的六年。2.侵權(quán)/非侵權(quán)部分之間的損害賠償分?jǐn)偍C加拿大不適用如果侵權(quán)的功能是整個(gè)產(chǎn)品中包含的多個(gè)功能之一，該怎么辦？在加拿大，尚未使用基于產(chǎn)品的侵權(quán)和非侵權(quán)部分分?jǐn)倱p害賠償?shù)母拍顏?lái)減少被告應(yīng)支付的損害賠償。加拿大法律的這一方面可能部分源于專利侵權(quán)作為侵權(quán)行為的概念，以及一個(gè)基本前提，即即使被告的過(guò)失不是造成其傷害的唯一原因，侵權(quán)的原告也可以追償其損失的100％。同樣，在考慮對(duì)專利權(quán)人是否會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)被告的銷售進(jìn)行分析時(shí)，在專利權(quán)人證明可以要求損害賠償?shù)妮^早階段，可能已經(jīng)考慮了這些因素。如果被告提出具有適當(dāng)證據(jù)的案件，加拿大法律可能會(huì)在這一點(diǎn)上進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。同時(shí)，由于這種原因的分?jǐn)傔€沒(méi)有成為加拿大損害賠償法的既定組成部分。這與美國(guó)的情況完全不同，在美國(guó)，分?jǐn)偸且?guī)則，而非例外。例如，在計(jì)算損害賠償金額時(shí)，美國(guó)法院通常使用的銷售基礎(chǔ)將基于“最小可銷售專利實(shí)踐單位”（SSPPU），這是閱讀專利權(quán)利要求書的最小可銷售產(chǎn)品。即使在SSPPU內(nèi)部，也可能需要在專利和非專利部分之間進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步分配。這可能導(dǎo)致美國(guó)判給的最終損害賠償金額大大減少。3.合理的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)計(jì)算–類似方法當(dāng)專利權(quán)人無(wú)法確定成功的專利權(quán)人可以確定被告取得的銷售額時(shí)，可以使用合理的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)來(lái)確定應(yīng)付給成功的專利權(quán)人的損害賠償。在加拿大和美國(guó)，確定合理的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)的做法都是相似的。假設(shè)雙方均行為合理且愿意交易，則在首次侵權(quán)之日通過(guò)在雙方之間進(jìn)行假設(shè)性協(xié)商來(lái)確定費(fèi)率。法院進(jìn)行了多因素分析，以確定當(dāng)事方可能會(huì)得出什么比率。在美國(guó)，這些因素稱為“喬治亞太平洋”因素，其中包括對(duì)以下因素的考慮，例如專利權(quán)人過(guò)去收取的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)率，被告為可比較許可所支付的費(fèi)率，對(duì)領(lǐng)土的任何排他性或其他限制以及商業(yè)雙方之間的關(guān)系。在加拿大，進(jìn)行了類似的多因素分析，以確定自愿許可方和自愿許可方之間的談判將產(chǎn)生多少特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)，并附有兩個(gè)端點(diǎn)：假設(shè)的許可方的最低接受意愿和假設(shè)的許可方的最大意愿。支付。談判的日期也被認(rèn)為是加拿大的第一個(gè)侵權(quán)日期。但是，有一個(gè)主要區(qū)別：在美國(guó)，可能仍然需要根據(jù)SSPPU原則對(duì)通過(guò)合理的使用費(fèi)分析得出的金額進(jìn)行分配。在加拿大，在合理的版稅法理學(xué)中，這個(gè)概念還沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)?？梢哉f(shuō)，如果獲得專利的零件僅構(gòu)成產(chǎn)品的不重要部分，則在確定特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)的假設(shè)協(xié)商過(guò)程中就已經(jīng)考慮了該因素。4.僅在加拿大：侵權(quán)人可獲得的利潤(rùn)《加拿大專利法》規(guī)定，已在法院證明侵權(quán)的專利權(quán)人有能力在損害賠償和侵權(quán)人的利益之間做出選擇。與美國(guó)相比，這是一個(gè)主要的區(qū)別因素。美國(guó)的相應(yīng)法規(guī)規(guī)定了獲得損害賠償或合理的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)的權(quán)利，但沒(méi)有為被告的利潤(rùn)追回做任何準(zhǔn)備。在加拿大，利潤(rùn)是一種公平的補(bǔ)救措施。因此，法院保留酌情決定權(quán)，以決定行為不佳的專利權(quán)人無(wú)權(quán)進(jìn)行該選舉，在這種情況下，專利權(quán)人將受到其可以證明的損害的限制。但是，在常規(guī)過(guò)程中，成功的專利權(quán)人可以選擇被告的利潤(rùn)，這可以在訴訟中帶來(lái)重大利益：- 更嚴(yán)格：被告的利潤(rùn)通常高于專利權(quán)人的損害賠償。這可能部分是因?yàn)槿缦滤觯P(guān)于利潤(rùn)（來(lái)自被告）分析與損失（專利權(quán)人）利潤(rùn)分析之間的費(fèi)用可抵扣性規(guī)則不同。
- 可扣除費(fèi)用較少：為了獲得利潤(rùn)，可以從被告的收入中扣除哪些類型的費(fèi)用受到限制。與出于計(jì)算專利權(quán)人的損失利潤(rùn)來(lái)衡量其遭受的損害的目的而扣除成本時(shí)不同，在計(jì)算侵權(quán)人的利潤(rùn)時(shí)，只有直接制造或提供侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)所產(chǎn)生的成本才可以扣除（通常稱為“可變成本”）。不得使用否則會(huì)產(chǎn)生的成本（即“固定成本”）來(lái)抵銷收入。這是因?yàn)榉ㄔ涸噲D剝奪侵權(quán)者因非法使用專利發(fā)明而獲得的任何利益。扣除固定成本可能意味著侵權(quán)者間接從侵權(quán)中受益。
- 證據(jù)負(fù)擔(dān)：當(dāng)選定利潤(rùn)時(shí)，要求專利權(quán)人證明被告的收入，然后負(fù)擔(dān)轉(zhuǎn)移到被告以證明從這些收入中扣除的任何款項(xiàng)，以得出被認(rèn)為是利潤(rùn)的部分。從專利權(quán)人的角度來(lái)看，從證據(jù)角度來(lái)看，這比證明損害賠償更為直接，并且要求專利權(quán)人較少的財(cái)務(wù)披露。
- 在加拿大制造的產(chǎn)品的域外利潤(rùn)：如果加拿大境內(nèi)有制造活動(dòng)侵犯了加拿大專利，即使該產(chǎn)品后來(lái)在加拿大境外出售，也可能在加拿大案件中主張相關(guān)的國(guó)外利潤(rùn)。
利潤(rùn)分析還有其他復(fù)雜性，這超出了本文的范圍，例如考慮非侵權(quán)選擇。但是，可以選擇侵權(quán)人的收益來(lái)提供加拿大專利訴訟的重大優(yōu)勢(shì)。5.授予前的賠償：在加拿大享有更大的權(quán)利在加拿大，專利權(quán)人有權(quán)就專利申請(qǐng)公布與專利發(fā)布之間發(fā)生的侵權(quán)活動(dòng)獲得賠償。這種補(bǔ)償采取合理的特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)的形式。沒(méi)有通知要求，只要被告的產(chǎn)品至少侵犯了一項(xiàng)授予專利的權(quán)利要求，專利權(quán)人就有權(quán)獲得賠償。在美國(guó)，這種補(bǔ)救措施較為有限。如果滿足兩個(gè)條件，則專利擁有人可以在授予專利之前追回?fù)p害賠償：被告對(duì)已公開(kāi)的專利申請(qǐng)有實(shí)際的通知，并且已公開(kāi)申請(qǐng)中要求保護(hù)的發(fā)明與最終專利中的發(fā)明基本相同。與美國(guó)不同的是，美國(guó)僅在有限的情況下（例如專利權(quán)人證明不公平的行為）提供法律費(fèi)用的回收，而加拿大則采用“敗訴方付費(fèi)”模式。如果訴訟成功，加拿大專利權(quán)人通常將獲得全部付款，例如專家費(fèi)以及相當(dāng)一部分法律費(fèi)用。如果法院確信被告從事不公正行為或應(yīng)受到制裁，則可大幅度增加追回范圍。在加拿大，成功的專利權(quán)人應(yīng)有權(quán)獲得補(bǔ)救，從侵權(quán)人在加拿大開(kāi)始侵權(quán)的時(shí)間（以六年的時(shí)效期限為準(zhǔn)）開(kāi)始，而不是從通知之時(shí)開(kāi)始。在美國(guó)，專利產(chǎn)品不一定是這種情況。如果根據(jù)專利制造實(shí)物產(chǎn)品，要在提起訴訟之前要求賠償侵權(quán)損失，則專利產(chǎn)品必須標(biāo)有專利號(hào)，或者必須已發(fā)出警告信。在美國(guó)，這一領(lǐng)域的潛在補(bǔ)救措施通常更高。如果事實(shí)證明是故意侵權(quán)，美國(guó)法院有法定權(quán)力裁定一般損害賠償金的三倍。加拿大法院確實(shí)有權(quán)酌情決定加重或懲罰性賠償，但是在加拿大判給這些賠償?shù)那闆r很少。但是，近來(lái)，在故意侵權(quán)案件中，懲罰性賠償金的數(shù)額更大，其中包括懲罰性賠償金是補(bǔ)償性賠償金的兩倍。這些案件可能是加拿大獲得更高懲罰性賠償?shù)内厔?shì)的開(kāi)始。與其他司法管轄區(qū)（如美國(guó)）相比，加拿大專利侵權(quán)補(bǔ)救措施框架之間的區(qū)別提供了進(jìn)一步的理由，將加拿大納入專利保護(hù)和執(zhí)行策略。特別是，在加拿大提起訴訟時(shí)，相對(duì)缺乏賠償金，獲利能力以及對(duì)成功當(dāng)事方的律師費(fèi)的相對(duì)缺乏可以構(gòu)成重大的戰(zhàn)略優(yōu)勢(shì)。
|
