把钱拿出来！加拿大和美国专利侵权的金钱赔偿的对比

每日IP英文第290期：

本文是加拿大与美国专利侵权诉讼损害赔偿规则的对比，从中我们可以了解两国家法律的异同，例如，两国损害赔偿的期限相同，都是起诉前六年，但是美国主张专利产品的侵权赔偿，还要有通知的要求，即产品上标注有专利号，且起诉前发出警告函；加拿大不需要计算侵权产品的分摊，而美国按照最小可销售单元SSPPU计算赔偿数额；两国确定合理的许可费率都基于类似的因素，如Georgia Pacific因素等；美国不能主张被诉侵权人的利润，而加拿大可以；加拿大获得授权前的补偿更容易；加拿大没有三倍损害赔偿。

中国专利侵权损害赔偿规则其实还比较粗放，实务中也面临较多问题，其实这是全世界的难题，看起来加拿大的制度也不是多么精细，当然，司法环境、法律思维的不同也会对专利保护带来巨大的影响。

了解这些国家的法律规定，对于深刻理解中国专利损害赔偿制度非常有帮助，美国的制度未必是最好的，我们应当客观的审视这些制度的利弊，摸索出适合中国的制度。

---

Show Me the Money! Canadian v. US Monetary Remedies for Patent Infringement

November 11 2019 | Gowling WLG - Selena Kim

Introduction

In 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 similar

When 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 Canada

What 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 approaches

Reasonable 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 profits

The 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 Canada

In 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 fees

Unlike 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 “loser 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 Canada

In 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 Canada

This 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.

Conclusion

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.

---

Google翻译：

把钱拿出来！加拿大和美国针对专利侵权的金钱赔偿比对

November 11 2019 | Gowling WLG - Selena Kim

介绍

近年来，加拿大已成为专利权人获取和执行其专利权的越来越有吸引力的司法管辖区。与美国相比，就金钱救济而言，加拿大在拟定侵权赔偿方面通常具有更大的灵活性。尽管我们的市场较小，但赔偿金和利润裁定的金额有时可能最终在加拿大变大。

本文针对的是那些对美国现有的专利侵权救济有一定了解的人。旨在提供我们对我们在相应的加拿大案例中注意到的主要差异的观察。

1.损害赔偿的确定–基本原理相似

关于确定加拿大和美国的专利损失，基本前提是相似的。目的是授予专利权人一定数额，以反映以下两者之间的差额：（i）专利权人原本在侵权中的财务状况；以及（ii）专利权人的实际财务状况在反映侵权的负面影响。

例如，如果专利权人可以确定，但就被告侵权而言，本来可以使被告实现销售，则损害赔偿的标准是专利权人的利润损失。利润损失是通过扣除专利权人为实现其销售而应承担的所有固定或可变成本来确定的。

如果专利权人本身没有实践专利或不能以其他方式确定专利会实现被告的销售，则损害赔偿采取合理的使用费形式。如果被告能证明自己可以并且会使用非侵权替代品，或者与之无关的因素是其部分或全部销售的原因，则损害赔偿额可能会减少。

在加拿大，可能还会追回其他种类的损害赔偿，例如委托销售（与专利产品相关的互补产品的销售，由于被告侵权而损失）和价格侵蚀或压制（如果专利权人必须降低价格或压制其计划由于被告的非法竞争导致价格上涨）。这些原则在两国之间是共同的。

同样，在加拿大和美国，专利诉讼的一般损害赔偿期限是相同的-提起诉讼之前的六年。

2.侵权/非侵权部分之间的损害赔偿分摊–加拿大不适用

如果侵权的功能是整个产品中包含的多个功能之一，该怎么办？在加拿大，尚未使用基于产品的侵权和非侵权部分分摊损害赔偿的概念来减少被告应支付的损害赔偿。加拿大法律的这一方面可能部分源于专利侵权作为侵权行为的概念，以及一个基本前提，即即使被告的过失不是造成其伤害的唯一原因，侵权的原告也可以追偿其损失的100％。同样，在考虑对专利权人是否会实现被告的销售进行分析时，在专利权人证明可以要求损害赔偿的较早阶段，可能已经考虑了这些因素。

如果被告提出具有适当证据的案件，加拿大法律可能会在这一点上进一步发展。同时，由于这种原因的分摊还没有成为加拿大损害赔偿法的既定组成部分。

这与美国的情况完全不同，在美国，分摊是规则，而非例外。例如，在计算损害赔偿金额时，美国法院通常使用的销售基础将基于“最小可销售专利实践单位”（SSPPU），这是阅读专利权利要求书的最小可销售产品。即使在SSPPU内部，也可能需要在专利和非专利部分之间进行进一步分配。这可能导致美国判给的最终损害赔偿金额大大减少。

3.合理的特许权使用费计算–类似方法

当专利权人无法确定成功的专利权人可以确定被告取得的销售额时，可以使用合理的特许权使用费来确定应付给成功的专利权人的损害赔偿。

在加拿大和美国，确定合理的特许权使用费的做法都是相似的。假设双方均行为合理且愿意交易，则在首次侵权之日通过在双方之间进行假设性协商来确定费率。法院进行了多因素分析，以确定当事方可能会得出什么比率。在美国，这些因素称为“乔治亚太平洋”因素，其中包括对以下因素的考虑，例如专利权人过去收取的特许权使用费率，被告为可比较许可所支付的费率，对领土的任何排他性或其他限制以及商业双方之间的关系。

在加拿大，进行了类似的多因素分析，以确定自愿许可方和自愿许可方之间的谈判将产生多少特许权使用费，并附有两个端点：假设的许可方的最低接受意愿和假设的许可方的最大意愿。支付。谈判的日期也被认为是加拿大的第一个侵权日期。

但是，有一个主要区别：在美国，可能仍然需要根据SSPPU原则对通过合理的使用费分析得出的金额进行分配。在加拿大，在合理的版税法理学中，这个概念还没有出现。可以说，如果获得专利的零件仅构成产品的不重要部分，则在确定特许权使用费的假设协商过程中就已经考虑了该因素。

4.仅在加拿大：侵权人可获得的利润

《加拿大专利法》规定，已在法院证明侵权的专利权人有能力在损害赔偿和侵权人的利益之间做出选择。与美国相比，这是一个主要的区别因素。美国的相应法规规定了获得损害赔偿或合理的特许权使用费的权利，但没有为被告的利润追回做任何准备。

在加拿大，利润是一种公平的补救措施。因此，法院保留酌情决定权，以决定行为不佳的专利权人无权进行该选举，在这种情况下，专利权人将受到其可以证明的损害的限制。但是，在常规过程中，成功的专利权人可以选择被告的利润，这可以在诉讼中带来重大利益：

• 更严格：被告的利润通常高于专利权人的损害赔偿。这可能部分是因为如下所述，关于利润（来自被告）分析与损失（专利权人）利润分析之间的费用可抵扣性规则不同。
• 可扣除费用较少：为了获得利润，可以从被告的收入中扣除哪些类型的费用受到限制。与出于计算专利权人的损失利润来衡量其遭受的损害的目的而扣除成本时不同，在计算侵权人的利润时，只有直接制造或提供侵权产品或服务所产生的成本才可以扣除（通常称为“可变成本”）。不得使用否则会产生的成本（即“固定成本”）来抵销收入。这是因为法院试图剥夺侵权者因非法使用专利发明而获得的任何利益。扣除固定成本可能意味着侵权者间接从侵权中受益。
• 证据负担：当选定利润时，要求专利权人证明被告的收入，然后负担转移到被告以证明从这些收入中扣除的任何款项，以得出被认为是利润的部分。从专利权人的角度来看，从证据角度来看，这比证明损害赔偿更为直接，并且要求专利权人较少的财务披露。
• 在加拿大制造的产品的域外利润：如果加拿大境内有制造活动侵犯了加拿大专利，即使该产品后来在加拿大境外出售，也可能在加拿大案件中主张相关的国外利润。

利润分析还有其他复杂性，这超出了本文的范围，例如考虑非侵权选择。但是，可以选择侵权人的收益来提供加拿大专利诉讼的重大优势。

5.授予前的赔偿：在加拿大享有更大的权利

在加拿大，专利权人有权就专利申请公布与专利发布之间发生的侵权活动获得赔偿。这种补偿采取合理的特许权使用费的形式。没有通知要求，只要被告的产品至少侵犯了一项授予专利的权利要求，专利权人就有权获得赔偿。

在美国，这种补救措施较为有限。如果满足两个条件，则专利拥有人可以在授予专利之前追回损害赔偿：被告对已公开的专利申请有实际的通知，并且已公开申请中要求保护的发明与最终专利中的发明基本相同。

6.失败者在加拿大付款：追回律师费

与美国不同的是，美国仅在有限的情况下（例如专利权人证明不公平的行为）提供法律费用的回收，而加拿大则采用“败诉方付费”模式。如果诉讼成功，加拿大专利权人通常将获得全部付款，例如专家费以及相当一部分法律费用。如果法院确信被告从事不公正行为或应受到制裁，则可大幅度增加追回范围。

7.在加拿大没有通知要求

在加拿大，成功的专利权人应有权获得补救，从侵权人在加拿大开始侵权的时间（以六年的时效期限为准）开始，而不是从通知之时开始。

在美国，专利产品不一定是这种情况。如果根据专利制造实物产品，要在提起诉讼之前要求赔偿侵权损失，则专利产品必须标有专利号，或者必须已发出警告信。

8.加拿大没有三倍损害赔偿框架

在美国，这一领域的潜在补救措施通常更高。如果事实证明是故意侵权，美国法院有法定权力裁定一般损害赔偿金的三倍。

加拿大法院确实有权酌情决定加重或惩罚性赔偿，但是在加拿大判给这些赔偿的情况很少。但是，近来，在故意侵权案件中，惩罚性赔偿金的数额更大，其中包括惩罚性赔偿金是补偿性赔偿金的两倍。这些案件可能是加拿大获得更高惩罚性赔偿的趋势的开始。

结论

与其他司法管辖区（如美国）相比，加拿大专利侵权补救措施框架之间的区别提供了进一步的理由，将加拿大纳入专利保护和执行策略。特别是，在加拿大提起诉讼时，相对缺乏赔偿金，获利能力以及对成功当事方的律师费的相对缺乏可以构成重大的战略优势。

-End-