由谷歌、微軟等大型科技公司組建的行業(yè)協(xié)會希望美國最高法院重新考量備受關(guān)注的蘋果專利案判決結(jié)果，原因是此項判決“對科技行業(yè)來說很危險”。

最近，美國計算機(jī)與通信行業(yè)協(xié)會（CCIA）提交了“法庭之友”意見書，對三星表示支持。此前美國上訴法院判決三星侵犯iPhone設(shè)計專利，須向蘋果公司賠償3.99億美元。2015年12月，三星就此向美國最高法院提起上訴。

蘋果和三星的專利之爭從2011年開始，耗時漫長而且十分膠著，上述設(shè)計專利糾紛只是其中的一個片斷。雖然三星最近支付了5.48億美元的捏拉縮放和設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)費(fèi)，但它仍在就此向美國最高法院等司法機(jī)構(gòu)上訴。

但對整個科技行業(yè)來說，iPhone設(shè)計專利糾紛最受關(guān)注，原因是上訴法院做出此項判決后，不正當(dāng)?shù)貜?fù)制他人產(chǎn)品外觀元素的公司就有可能遭遇滅頂之災(zāi)。

是次糾紛涉及美國第D618677號專利，其內(nèi)容包括iPhone最初的外觀設(shè)計。更具體地說，三星認(rèn)為上訴法院的失誤在于后者裁定的侵權(quán)賠償以iPhone的全部價值為基礎(chǔ)，而不僅僅是和受保護(hù)的設(shè)計專利有關(guān)的價值。

為支持三星，CCIA在意見書中指出，蘋果申請的設(shè)計專利并不包含整個iPhone。該協(xié)會引用設(shè)計專利法規(guī)稱，相反，蘋果用虛線將iPhone的絕大部分排除在了此項專利之外：

也就是說，蘋果在下圖中只為iPhone的正面申請了專利，該產(chǎn)品的其他部分為虛線，表明它們并未包括在專利中。

A trade group for Google, Microsoft, and other big tech firms wants the Supreme Court to reconsider a closely-watched Apple patent decision, claiming the ruling is”dangerous to the technology industry.”

The claim, filed on Friday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, came in the form of a “friend-of-the-court” brief in support of Samsung, which in December asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals court’s decision to award $399 million to Apple over the infringement of an iPhone design.

The design dispute is just one twist in a bitter and long-running patent fight between Apple and Samsung that began in 2011. While Samsung recently paid out $548 million over “pinch-to-zoom” and design patents, it is still fighting that award on various of legal fronts, including at the Supreme Court.

For the broader tech industry, however, it is the design dispute over the iPhone that is top-of-mind because the lower court’s ruling stands to open the door to calamitous damages whenever a company is found to wrongfully copy the ornamental aspects of a product.

In the iPhone case, the issue turns on U.S. Patent D618677, which covers the outer design of the original iPhone. More specifically, Samsung says the appeals court made a mistake by finding the design patent entitled Apple to damages based on the entire value of the iPhone—instead of just the value associated with the protected design.

In support of Samsung, the CCIA filing argues that Apple’s design patent application did not claim the entire device. It cites design patent rules to say Apple instead used dotted lines to exclude most of the phone from the patent claim:

That is, the drawings claim only the front face of the device, and the rest of the device is shown in dotted lines, which indicate unclaimed subject matter.

CCIA的意見書還警告說，如果維持原判，那么以收購專利，然后發(fā)起起訴為經(jīng)營模式的控股公司“就可能利用設(shè)計專利來大舉攻擊”該協(xié)會成員（還包括Netflix、亞馬遜和Facebook）。

據(jù)俄克拉荷馬大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、設(shè)計專利權(quán)威人士莎拉?伯斯坦介紹，三星的一個策略立足點(diǎn)是告訴最高法院，和普通發(fā)明專利相比，“設(shè)計專利并無特殊之處”。發(fā)明專利針對的是產(chǎn)品的功能，而不是外觀，判斷發(fā)明專利遭侵犯后的損失則要基于該專利對產(chǎn)品的貢獻(xiàn)。

最高法院將在今后幾周內(nèi)決定是否接納三星的上訴。如果接納，蘋果和三星就有可能在今年春末或者秋天就此展開法庭辯論。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

校對：詹妮

The CCIA filing also warns that, if the original decision is allowed to stand, its members (which also include Netflix, Amazon, and Facebook) could be faced with “potentially massive exposure to attack using design patents” by shell companies whose business model is to acquire patents and then launch lawsuits.

According to law professor Sarah Burstein, an authority on design patents at the University of Oklahoman, Samsung’s strategy is partly based on telling the Supreme Court that “design patents aren’t special” compared to regular utility patents. Utility patents cover a product’s function, rather than ornamentation, and the damages for them are based on the patent’s contribution to the product.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear Samsung’s appeal in the next several weeks. If it agrees to do so, Apple and Samsung would likely argue the case in the late spring or in the fall.