美國專利侵權合理授權金與持續性授權金

Patent Infringement Reasonable Royalty and Ongoing Royalty in U.S.

自從2006年美國最高法院判決eBay案後，改變了專利侵權的禁制令審查，當專利權人自身不從事產品生產時，法院就算認定侵權後，也可能會不同意核發禁制令。自此開始有地區法院核發持續性授權（ongoing royalty）命令。對於法院所核發的持續性授權命令，也開始引起討論，並有案件上訴到聯邦巡迴上訴法院。因此，本文將討論美國專利法上此種最近興起的持續性授權命令，尤其本文焦點，將放在法院如何計算持續性授權金之金額或授權費率。本文將介紹Paice LLC v.Toyota Motor Corp.案（2007）與Amado v. Microsoft Corp.案（2008）二份重要判決，並從判決中找出關於持續性授權金設定的重要意見。雖然聯邦巡迴上訴法院已有重要判決，但對於具體的持續性授權金的設定操作，並沒有提供清楚指引，因此，仍然沒辦法清楚得知究竟該如何設定持續性侵權金。其中，被聯邦巡迴上訴法院發回的Paice LLC v.Toyota Motor Corp.案，後來回到地區法院，而地區法院根據巡迴上訴法院見解，重新計算了持續性授權金。故本文將更具體地介紹持續性授權金的設定，包括Paice案地區法院見解，以及學者的建議。

Since 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the eBay case, changed the review of a patent infringement injunction. When the patentee is not engaged in production, even if the court finds defendant did infringement, it may not agree to issuance of the injunction. Alternatively, the district court began to issue ongoing royalty. This new type of relief stimulates many discussions, and there have several cases been appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, this article will discuss the ongoing royalty recently rising in U.S. patent law, especially, this paper will focus on how the court to calculate the amount or rate of ongoing royalty. There were several cases been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Federal Circuit also made some important reasoning. Therefore, this article will introduce two Federal Circuit cases: Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2007) and Amado, v Microsoft Corp. (2008). While the Federal Circuit has been issued some important reasoning, it did not provide clear guidelines. Therefore, it is still not clear for district courts how to set ongoing royalty rate. Following the Federal Circuit limit guidelines, the district courts try to find the best way to set the ongoing royalty themselves. Among them, after Federal Circuit return Paice, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. to East District Court of Texas, the district court have tried to recalculate the ongoing royalty rate. The method it used is distinct from the pass infringement award while take the Georgia-Pacific Factors at the same times. Therefore, this article will be introduce the ongoing royalty’s settings in Paice case more specifically, and then will introduce some scholar’s suggestions.