由谷歌,、微軟等大型科技公司組建的行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)希望美國(guó)最高法院重新考量備受關(guān)注的蘋(píng)果專(zhuān)利案判決結(jié)果,，原因是此項(xiàng)判決“對(duì)科技行業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)很危險(xiǎn)”,。

最近,，美國(guó)計(jì)算機(jī)與通信行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)（CCIA）提交了“法庭之友”意見(jiàn)書(shū),，對(duì)三星表示支持,。此前美國(guó)上訴法院判決三星侵犯iPhone設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利，須向蘋(píng)果公司賠償3.99億美元,。2015年12月,，三星就此向美國(guó)最高法院提起上訴。

蘋(píng)果和三星的專(zhuān)利之爭(zhēng)從2011年開(kāi)始,，耗時(shí)漫長(zhǎng)而且十分膠著,，上述設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利糾紛只是其中的一個(gè)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(jì)專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)費(fèi),，但它仍在就此向美國(guó)最高法院等司法機(jī)構(gòu)上訴,。

但對(duì)整個(gè)科技行業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，iPhone設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利糾紛最受關(guān)注,，原因是上訴法院做出此項(xiàng)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(guó)第D618677號(hào)專(zhuān)利，其內(nèi)容包括iPhone最初的外觀設(shè)計(jì),。更具體地說(shuō),，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?jī)r(jià)值為基礎(chǔ)，而不僅僅是和受保護(hù)的設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利有關(guān)的價(jià)值,。

為支持三星,，CCIA在意見(jiàn)書(shū)中指出，蘋(píng)果申請(qǐng)的設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利并不包含整個(gè)iPhone,。該協(xié)會(huì)引用設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利法規(guī)稱(chēng),，相反，蘋(píng)果用虛線將iPhone的絕大部分排除在了此項(xiàng)專(zhuān)利之外：

也就是說(shuō),，蘋(píng)果在下圖中只為iPhone的正面申請(qǐng)了專(zhuān)利,，該產(chǎn)品的其他部分為虛線，表明它們并未包括在專(zhuān)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(jiàn)書(shū)還警告說(shuō),，如果維持原判，那么以收購(gòu)專(zhuān)利,，然后發(fā)起起訴為經(jīng)營(yíng)模式的控股公司“就可能利用設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利來(lái)大舉攻擊”該協(xié)會(huì)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(jì)專(zhuān)利權(quán)威人士莎拉?伯斯坦介紹,，三星的一個(gè)策略立足點(diǎn)是告訴最高法院，和普通發(fā)明專(zhuān)利相比,，“設(shè)計(jì)專(zhuān)利并無(wú)特殊之處”,。發(fā)明專(zhuān)利針對(duì)的是產(chǎn)品的功能，而不是外觀,，判斷發(fā)明專(zhuān)利遭侵犯后的損失則要基于該專(zhuān)利對(duì)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(píng)果和三星就有可能在今年春末或者秋天就此展開(kāi)法庭辯論,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

校對(duì)：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.