目前，知识产权诉讼有复杂化的趋势，特别是与软件有关的案件会交织着商业秘密、著作权和专利侵权等纠纷，诉讼也必须与商业竞争策略相结合，本文就关注到这一点，其第一部分介绍了最近的案件，第二部分介绍了原告的诉讼策略，第三部分介绍了被告的诉讼策略，值得学习。Alert: Combination Litigation: Recent Software Disputes at the Intersection of Trade Secret, Copyright and Patent Law
20 August 2020 | Cooley LLP Contact -Adam Gershenson，Sarah Moore，Stephen Smith，Liz TraftonIn recent years, companies have increasingly needed to employ multiple, overlapping legal regimes – trade secret, copyright and patent law – to protect intellectual property such as software. Companies need to weigh the pros and cons of these different but intersecting protections to safeguard their IP. As these doctrines increasingly converge, companies should also recognize that the convergence of these different doctrines is contributing to a rise in 'combination litigation' that puts into play, in a single case, multiple theories regarding exactly what intellectual property is protected and how.Clarity over the dividing line between trade secret, copyright and patent claims in software-related IP disputes will have to wait as the Supreme Court has postponed oral arguments in Google v. Oracle – a case that many hope will clarify the bounds of these three causes of action. As we wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in, we will likely continue to see a rise in combination litigation suits like Google v. Oracle that involve multiple overlapping IP claims. Informed plaintiffs and defendants should be aware of the strategies available, and the risks inherent, in this increasingly popular field of combination litigation.To that end, this alert is the first in a three-part series addressing the topic. Part I provides background on software IP litigation, examines the blurred lines between trade secret, copyright and patent claims in software IP disputes, and discusses recent cases implicating the overlapping regimes. Part II provides practical tips plaintiffs can use in such multipronged suits. Part III provides suggestions for defendants faced with suits where patent, copyright and trade secret claims intertwine.Complex software IP litigation backgroundSoftware has expressive and functional elements and can be kept secret. Each of these aspects speaks to a different body of law, with copyright covering creative expression, patents covering functionality and trade secret law protecting valuable confidential information. Given this complex intersection, the bodies of law to which software IP owners look to protect and litigate disputes has evolved over time and will continue to evolve.The Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which made it more difficult for companies to secure patent protection for software inventions, and the passage of the DTSA caused a shift toward trade secret litigation – particularly for software. Indeed, trade secret filings increased 30% between 2015 and 2017.This increase in trade secret filings remained steady through 2019. Last year alone, claimants in federal court filed approximately 1,400 new trade secret cases. One trade secret plaintiff secured over $845 million in damages.While many software litigants have turned to trade secret allegations, many others have turned to combination litigation. Prominent examples include Google v. Oracle and a recent Federal Circuit opinion, Intellisoft v. Acer.Google v. OracleGoogle v. Oracle involves both copyright and patent law. The Supreme Court has accepted the case to address whether the 'structure, sequence and organization' of Oracle's Java APIs are entitled to copyright protection and if so, whether use of those APIs by Google for purposes of interoperability constitutes fair use. Google argues that copyright protection for functional aspects of Oracle's Java APIs would extend patent-like protection to functional aspects of software through copyright protection, which historically aimed to protect expressive, rather than functional aspects.As one commentator recently observed, 'Odds are good that the biggest patent case of the year will be a copyright case.' The Supreme Court recently postponed the oral arguments in Oracle v. Google until the fall. In the interim, and even after that decision, we expect to see complex software IP cases testing the boundaries between and among the realms of patent, copyright and trade secret protection.Intellisoft v. AcerThe recent Federal Circuit opinion Intellisoft also demonstrated how patent and trade secret claims can overlap and how the courts are aiming to navigate their boundaries.Intellisoft sued Acer in California state court, alleging trade secret theft on the grounds that Acer's patent incorporated Intellisoft's trade secrets. Acer responded that such allegations constituted a patent 'inventorship claim' and sought declaratory relief that Intellisoft was not the inventor. Acer removed the case to federal court, arguing, 'Intellisoft's state law claim for trade secret misappropriation arose 'under federal patent law.'' Acer later secured summary judgment against Intellisoft.On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated Acer's summary judgment win, ruling the case should never have been removed to federal court. The Federal Circuit explained that Intellisoft's burden was to satisfy the ownership standards for trade secrets under California law, not prove it was the inventor of Acer's patent. Trade secret ownership 'did not necessarily depend on patent laws,' and, 'Plaintiff's reliance on a patent as evidence to support its state law claims [did] not necessarily require resolution of a substantial patent question.' The court's opinion thus aimed to draw a jurisdictional line between patents and trade secrets.Trade secret litigation trends in software casesSeveral recent decisions show the potential impacts of combination litigation concerning patent, trade secret and copyright claims:Motorola v. Hytera: In February, a federal jury found that Hytera stole software trade secrets and infringed copyrights owned by Motorola, awarding over $345 million in compensatory damages. While Motorola's trade secret and copyright claims overlapped, its double-barreled approach likely increased its damage award, as the jury awarded Motorola $73 million in 'head-start' damages, representing the amount that Hytera would have needed to invest to develop the stolen trade secrets. Capricorn Management v. GEICO: In March, defendant GEICO leveraged Capricorn's own copyright claim against the plaintiff to obtain summary judgment on Capricorn's trade secret claim. Capricorn accused GEICO of misappropriating Capricorn's trade secret source code for medical billing software. The court granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, holding that the source code was not entitled to protection because Capricorn had registered it, unredacted, with the Copyright Office. Financial Information Technologies v. iControl Systems: This month, iControl Systems moved for a new trial in a trade secret case, invoking patent law as a reason why the jury verdict on a trade secret claim in favor of plaintiff-competitor, Fintech, cannot stand. The jury found that iControl misappropriated, among other things, Fintech's software interfaces and database architecture. iControl claims that these outward-facing features of Fintech's widely available software program cannot be trade secrets notwithstanding Fintech's terms and conditions, which restrict use and disclosure, because only patent law could afford Fintech a monopoly over the software's readily apparent features.
As these cases demonstrate, litigants in software-related IP cases are increasingly invoking combining copyright, patent law and trade secret claims. In view of this emerging trend, Cooley will be circulating two additional alerts providing practical tips for both plaintiffs and defendants litigating such disputes in this new climate.Alert: Combination Litigation Series Part II - Tips for Plaintiffs Litigating Software IP Disputes at Intersection of Trade Secret, Copyright and Patent LawFrom the Google v. Oracle case pending at the Supreme Court to disputes proliferating in district courts across the country, parties are increasingly using overlapping and disparate causes of action to protect their IP. As described in Part I of this series, this new strategy has fueled the rise of 'combination litigation.' Combination litigation employs multiple causes of action, such as trade secret, copyright, and patent, particularly in software IP disputes. Such litigation offers different avenues for relief but also poses potential pitfalls, and thus raises counter-balancing considerations for Plaintiffs.This alert, the second in a three-part series, offers practical tips plaintiffs can use in pursuing these complex suits involving overlapping trade secret, copyright and patent claims. Part III will in turn provide suggestions for defendants faced with suits where multiple IP causes of action are at play.Balance bringing overlapping IP claims with preferred forumSelecting an advantageous forum is critical to maximizing the likelihood of success in software-related IP disputes. The intellectual property theories a software plaintiff chooses to advance will have a direct impact on the forums available.Unlike with patent and copyright causes of action, trade secret plaintiffs have the option to sue in federal court under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) or through diversity jurisdiction, or to pursue state law remedies in state court. While a federal forum – with its broad discovery, highly qualified judges and nationwide service – is often preferable, that is not always the case. For example, where swift injunctive relief is a primary goal, many state courts rely on longstanding practice and procedure to more readily grant preliminary injunctive relief. When the availability of injunctive relief or other considerations weigh in favor of a state forum, trade secret plaintiffs may choose to forgo tacking on patent claims or federal copyright claims to their suit because such claims may generally proceed only in federal court.The recent case of Intellisoft v. Acer, highlights this strategic issue. Intellisoft chose to sue Acer in California state court under California's Uniform Trade Secret Act and did not raise a federal trade secret claim under the DTSA, likely because raising such a claim would have provided grounds for removal to federal court. While Intellisoft cited an Acer patent as evidence of Acer's theft – claiming that Acer's patent incorporated its alleged trade secrets – Intellisoft did not assert any actual cause of action under patent law. That decision proved critical. Although Acer removed the case to federal court and secured summary judgment through an attempt to characterize Intellisoft's claims as a patent inventorship issue for which they sought declaratory relief, the Federal Circuit vacated that summary judgment ruling and remanded the case back to state court. The Federal Circuit explained that removal had been improper because Intellisoft's 'reliance on a patent as evidence to support its state law claims [did] not necessarily require resolution of a substantial patent question' that would justify proceeding in federal court. This decision suggests that pleading only a state law trade secret claim is the surest path to remaining in state court.Even where a federal forum is preferred, pursuing a patent claim may still disqualify a plaintiff from litigating in its preferred forum. While plaintiffs asserting trade secret and copyright claims can, in many cases, bring suit in any venue where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, venue in patent cases has become far more restrictive. Today, a patent suit against a domestic defendant can be brought only in judicial districts where the defendant is incorporated or has an established place of business, which can give defendants a home-court advantage. When a patent infringement claim is weak, subject to a validity or inter partes review challenge, or where the recovery on the patent claim would be duplicative of relief already sought under other theories, it may be worth leaving aside the patent claim in favor of litigating other available IP claims in a more favorable forum.Public filings on patents and copyrights can shape identification of trade secretsIn some jurisdictions, plaintiffs must identify their alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity early in the case and may be held to that identification throughout the litigation. Although this requirement does not sound especially challenging in theory, in practice numerous plaintiffs find that in the regular course of business their trade secrets are not kept or identified with the requisite particularity required by courts. Thus, meeting the identification requirement can often prove difficult or at least undesirable for plaintiffs who generally want to delay identification as long as possible. When patent or copyright claims are also at issue, the identification requirement becomes even more challenging. Because public disclosure destroys a trade secret, plaintiffs must be sure to differentiate their claimed trade secrets from the information they have disclosed in patents or published patent applications. That same concern arises in copyright claims because source code registered with the copyright office without redactions may render that source code public domain for purposes of trade secret protection, and thus may undermine trade secret claims.If there are concerns about whether aspects of their trade secrets may be public, plaintiffs may also want to consider whether their alleged trade secrets constitute 'compilation' trade secrets. In some jurisdictions, trade secrets may constitute 'compilations' where plaintiffs claim their trade secret is the combination of known elements, each of which may be in the public domain, but where the combination of those elements is secret and valuable. For example, a database that combines publicly available information might have a trade secret way of collecting, organizing, or analyzing that information.Avoid patent-claim construction arguments that compromise trade secret claimsWhere a suit involves related trade secret and patent claims, plaintiffs must align their claim construction that defines the terms of a patent with their trade secret positions. Arguments made in claim construction, particularly in demonstrating that one skilled in the art would understand a claim term to include certain subject matter, may broaden the scope of the patent sufficiently to expose plaintiffs to arguments that the patent disclosure encompasses the trade secrets. In such a scenario, the patent could be seen as disclosing publicly the same subject matter sought to be protected as a trade secret. Plaintiffs should ensure that the positions they take during claim construction do not inadvertently foreclose a trade secret claim that they are pursuing simultaneously.Pursuing combination litigation can provide software plaintiffs with expansive relief. But doing so is not without risks. When bringing and litigating combination litigation, software plaintiffs should keep these tips in mind to maximize their chance of success.Alert: Combination Litigation Series Part III: Tips for Defendants Litigating Software Disputes at the Intersection of Trade Secret, Copyright and Patent LawAs companies increasingly employ multiple legal regimes to protect IP, defendants face an increase in combination litigation, where they need to simultaneously fend off a combination of trade secret, patent and copyright claims. Such litigation, which often arises in software disputes, raises defendants’ exposure and creates multiple, vulnerable flanks. These disputes are making their way through courts at all levels, including in the pending Supreme Court case of Google v. Oracle, which concerns the overlap of patent and copyright claims.The first two installments in this three-part series addressed the rise of combination litigation and suggested strategies plaintiffs can use in these cases. In this, the final installment, we provide strategies for defendants faced with combination litigation in software IP disputes at the intersection of trade secret, copyright and patent law.Defendants should evaluate potential preemption defensesWhen disputes over software give rise to both copyright claims and state law trade secret claims, defendants should analyze possible preemption defenses. The Copyright Act explicitly preempts state-law claims “that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright.”Many federal circuit courts employ their own tests to determine whether preemption applies. For example, the Ninth Circuit finds that a claim arising under the Copyright Act preempts a state-law claim when (1) the work at issue must come within the subject matter of copyright law, and (2) the rights granted under state law must be equivalent to those protected by the Copyright Act. Where a plaintiff seeks remedies for the trade secret theft of ideas “fixed” in the “tangible medium” of software, the Ninth Circuit’s preemption test will likely be met.Although copyright law will not preempt a trade secret claim based on the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, pursuing preemption may still have advantages where both federal and state trade secret claims are at issue. In some instances, the DTSA may be more favorable to the defense than state law, particularly given precedents from federal district courts requiring plaintiffs to identify their trade secret with sufficient particularity. Similarly, defendants disputing claims regarding the “inevitable disclosure” of trade secrets may fare better under the DTSA’s federal standard than under certain state law regimes, so there is an advantage to securing preemption of the state law trade secret claims.Defendants should investigate where plaintiffs waived trade secret protection through public disclosures – including in the plaintiffs’ own copyrights and patentsDefendants often check published articles and patents to see if they disclose a plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets. They should do the same for copyright registrations. The recent case of GEICO v. Capricorn Management Systems highlights how a plaintiff’s attempt to secure copyright protection can facilitate a defendant’s attack on the plaintiff’s trade secrets. In GEICO, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misappropriated its alleged trade secrets with respect to its medical billing software. The source code for that medical billing software had been submitted to the US Copyright Office without redactions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, finding that the plaintiff’s alleged trade secret was not in fact secret.That decision underscores the value defendants can reap by scouring public disclosures by plaintiffs (and third parties), including both patent and copyright filings. Defendants should also pursue other avenues of potentially unprotected disclosures, including where plaintiffs shared allegedly secret information with customers or other third parties.Defendants should assess potential reverse engineering defenses when litigating trade secret and copyright claimsUnlike in patent cases, reverse engineering or other independent development is a strong defense in trade secret cases – particularly for software cases. As a result, plaintiffs bringing additional claims for trade secret theft or copyright infringement can make available a reverse engineering defense that would otherwise not be available in a case featuring only patent claims.Reverse engineering and disassembly of copyrighted software may also be a defense to copyright infringement. A transient copy created for purposes of accessing information about the software's functional principles may be protected by the fair use doctrine – a defense to copyright infringement allegations. Reverse engineering is still not a defense to a patent infringement claim, so defendants facing multiple claims need to analyze the value, and risks, of raising such a defense.As defendants are likely to see a rise in combination litigation, keeping these tips in mind should help in mounting a formidable defense.
Google翻译：警报：合并诉讼：商业秘密，版权和专利法交叉口的最新软件纠纷
20 August 2020 | Cooley LLP Contact -Adam Gershenson，Sarah Moore，Stephen Smith，Liz Trafton近年来，公司越来越需要采用多种重叠的法律制度（商业秘密，版权和专利法）来保护软件等知识产权。公司需要权衡这些不同但相交的保护措施的利弊，以保护其IP。随着这些学说的日益融合，公司还应该认识到这些不同学说的融合正在促成“组合诉讼”的兴起，在一个案例中，有关保护什么知识产权以及如何保护知识产权的多种理论发挥了作用。由于最高法院推迟了Google诉Oracle一案的口头辩论，因此必须等待有关软件相关的IP争端中的商业秘密，版权和专利主张之间的界限的澄清-许多人希望此案能阐明这三个原因的界限行动。在我们等待最高法院审理此案的过程中，我们很可能会继续看到涉及多个重叠IP索赔的诸如Google v。Oracle之类的联合诉讼案件有所增加。知情的原告和被告应了解在这种日益流行的联合诉讼领域中可用的策略以及固有的风险。为此，此警报是针对该主题的三部分系列中的第一篇。第一部分提供了软件IP诉讼的背景，研究了软件IP争议中的商业秘密，版权和专利主张之间的界线模糊，并讨论了牵涉重叠制度的最新案例。第二部分提供了原告可以在这种多管齐下的整套案件中使用的实用技巧。第三部分为面临专利，版权和商业秘密主张纠缠的诉讼的被告提供建议。复杂软件IP诉讼背景软件具有表达性和功能性元素，可以保密。这些方面的每个方面都涉及不同的法律体系，版权涵盖创意表达，专利涵盖功能，而商业秘密法则保护有价值的机密信息。考虑到这一复杂的交叉点，软件IP所有者希望保护和诉讼纠纷的法律体系已经随着时间的推移而发展，并将继续发展。最高法院的Alice诉CLS银行判决使公司更难获得软件发明的专利保护，而DTSA的通过导致向商业秘密诉讼（尤其是软件）的转变。确实，在2015年至2017年之间，商业秘密备案增加了30％。到2019年，商业秘密申请的增长一直保持稳定。仅去年一年，联邦法院的索赔人就提出了大约1400个新的商业秘密案件。一名商业秘密原告获得了超过8.45亿美元的赔偿。尽管许多软件诉讼已转向商业秘密指控，但许多其他诉讼已转向合并诉讼。著名的例子包括Google诉Oracle案和联邦巡回法院最近的意见Intellisoft诉Acer案。Google诉OracleGoogle v。Oracle涉及版权法和专利法。最高法院已受理此案，以解决Oracle Java API的“结构，顺序和组织”是否有权获得版权保护，如果是，那么Google出于互操作性目的使用这些API是否构成合理使用。Google认为，对Oracle Java API的功能方面的版权保护将通过版权保护将类专利的保护扩展到软件的功能方面，而版权保护在历史上旨在保护表达性而非功能性方面。正如一位评论员最近观察到的那样，“今年最大的专利案件将是版权案件，这真是一件好事。” 最高法院最近将甲骨文诉Google的口头辩论推迟到秋天。在过渡期间，甚至在做出该决定之后，我们希望看到复杂的软件IP案例正在测试专利，版权和商业秘密保护领域之间的界限。Intellisoft诉Acer联邦巡回法院最近的意见Intellisoft还展示了专利和商业秘密主张如何重叠以及法院如何努力跨越界限。Intellisoft在加利福尼亚州法院起诉Acer，指控Acer的专利包含了Intellisoft的商业秘密，从而窃取了商业秘密。宏cer回应说，这些指控构成了专利的“发明人权利要求”，并寻求声明性救济，即Intellisoft不是发明人。宏cer将案件移交给联邦法院，称：“根据联邦专利法，Intellisoft的州法对商业秘密被盗用提出了要求。”宏cer随后对Intellisoft做出了简易判决。在上诉中，联邦巡回法院撤消了Acer的简易判决胜诉，裁定该案永远不应移交给联邦法院。联邦巡回法院解释说，Intellisoft的责任是要满足加利福尼亚法律下商业秘密的所有权标准，而不是证明它是Acer专利的发明者。商业秘密所有权“不一定取决于专利法”，“原告依靠专利作为支持其州法主张的证据[不一定]必须解决实质性的专利问题。” 因此，法院的意见旨在在专利和商业秘密之间划定管辖区。软件案例中的商业秘密诉讼趋势最近的几项裁决显示了合并诉讼对专利，商业秘密和版权主张的潜在影响：摩托罗拉诉Hytera案： 2月，联邦陪审团裁定Hytera窃取了软件商业机密并侵犯了Motorola拥有的版权，裁定赔偿3.45亿美元的赔偿金。尽管摩托罗拉的商业秘密和版权主张重叠，但其双管齐下的做法可能会增加损害赔偿金，因为陪审团向摩托罗拉判给了7300万美元的“先发制人”损害赔偿，这是Hytera为发展被盗交易而需要投资的金额机密。 Capricorn Management诉GEICO： 3月，被告GEICO利用Capricorn Management自身对原告的版权主张，获得了对Capricorn Management商业秘密主张的简易判决。Capricorn Management指责GEICO挪用了Capricorn Management用于医疗计费软件的商业秘密源代码。法院批准了GEICO的即决判决动议，裁定该源代码无权获得保护，因为Capricorn Management已将其未编辑的注册于版权局。 Financial Information Technologies诉iControl Systems：本月，iControl Systems提出了一项针对商业秘密案件的新审判，援引专利法，是陪审团对商业秘密主张作出有利于原告竞争对手Fintech的裁决的原因。陪审团认为，iControl盗用了Fintech的软件接口和数据库体系结构。iControl声称，尽管Fintech的条款和条件限制了使用和披露，但Fintech广泛可用的软件程序的这些外向功能不能成为商业秘密，因为只有专利法才能赋予Fintech对软件显而易见的功能的垄断权。
正如这些案件所表明的，与软件相关的IP案件中的诉讼人越来越多地诉诸于版权，专利法和商业秘密主张。鉴于这种新兴趋势，Cooley将再发布两个警报，为在这种新环境下对此类纠纷提起诉讼的原告和被告双方提供实用技巧。警报：联合诉讼系列第二部分-在商业秘密，版权和专利法交叉口对原告提起诉讼的软件IP纠纷的提示从最高法院审理的Google诉Oracle案到全国各地地方法院激增的纠纷，各方越来越多地使用相互重叠且互不相同的诉讼来保护其知识产权。如本系列文章的第一部分所述，这种新策略助长了“合并诉讼”的兴起。组合诉讼采用多种诉讼因由，例如商业秘密，版权和专利，尤其是在软件IP争议中。这样的诉讼提供了不同的救济途径，但也带来了潜在的陷阱，因此引发了对原告的平衡考虑。此警报是由三部分组成的系列文章中的第二篇，它提供了一些原告可以使用的实用技巧，以进行涉及复杂的商业秘密，版权和专利主张的复杂诉讼。第三部分将反过来为面临诉讼的被告提出建议，这些诉讼涉及多种知识产权诉讼因由。平衡与首选论坛的重叠的IP要求选择一个有利的论坛对于最大限度地提高与软件相关的IP争端成功的可能性至关重要。软件原告选择发展的知识产权理论将直接影响可用的论坛。与专利和版权诉讼不同，商业秘密原告可以选择根据《捍卫商业秘密法》（DTSA）在联邦法院提起诉讼，也可以选择通过多元化管辖权起诉，也可以选择在州法院寻求州法律的补救措施。联邦论坛-具有广泛的发现，高素质的法官和遍布全国的服务-通常是可取的，但并非总是如此。例如，在以快速禁令救济为主要目标的情况下，许多州法院依靠长期的惯例和程序来更容易地给予初步禁令救济。当禁令性救济或其他考虑因素的使用有利于州立法院时，商业秘密原告可能会选择放弃针对其诉讼的专利主张或联邦版权主张，因为此类主张通常只能在联邦法院进行。Intellisoft诉Acer的最新案例，突出了这个战略问题。Intellisoft选择根据加利福尼亚州的《统一商业秘密法》在加利福尼亚州法院起诉Acer，但并未根据DTSA提出联邦商业秘密要求，这很可能是因为提出此类要求会为将其移交给联邦法院提供依据。尽管Intellisoft引用了Acer专利作为Acer盗窃的证据–声称Acer的专利包含了其所谓的商业秘密，但Intellisoft并未主张专利法下的任何实际诉讼因由。该决定被证明是至关重要的。尽管Acer将案件移交给联邦法院，并试图通过将Intellisoft的索赔描述为专利发明人问题来寻求宣告救济，但获得了即席判决，但联邦巡回法院撤消了该简易判决的裁决，并将案件退回州法院。联邦巡回法院解释说，撤消是不当的，因为Intellisoft的“依赖专利作为支持其州法主张的证据[不一定]需要解决实质性的专利问题”，这足以证明在联邦法院进行诉讼是合理的。该决定表明，仅对州法律的商业秘密主张进行辩护是留在州法院的最可靠途径。即使在首选联邦论坛的情况下，追求专利主张仍可能使原告无法在其首选论坛中提起诉讼。尽管在许多情况下，原告主张商业秘密和版权主张可以在被告人身受其管辖的任何场所提起诉讼，但专利案件中的场所变得更为严格。如今，针对家庭被告的专利诉讼只能在被告成立或拥有营业地的司法区域提起，这可以使被告享有家事优势。当专利侵权主张不充分时，应受其效力或相互影响 审查挑战，或者在专利权利要求的恢复将与其他理论已经寻求的救济重复的情况下，可能有必要将专利权利要求放在一边，而在一个更有利的论坛上对其他可用的知识产权权利要求进行诉讼。关于专利和版权的公开申请可以塑造商业秘密的识别在某些司法管辖区，原告必须在案件早期以合理的特殊性识别其所谓的商业秘密，并可能在整个诉讼过程中将其保留。尽管从理论上讲，此要求听起来并不具有特别的挑战性，但实际上，许多原告发现，在正常的业务过程中，他们的商业机密没有得到法院要求的特殊性保护或确认。因此，对于通常希望尽可能长地延迟识别的原告来说，满足识别要求通常会很困难，或者至少是不希望的。当专利或版权主张也有争议时，识别要求就变得更具挑战性。由于公开披露会破坏商业秘密，原告必须确保将其主张的商业秘密与他们在专利或公开的专利申请中公开的信息区分开。在版权声明中也会出现同样的问题，因为未经版权保护在版权局注册的源代码可能出于商业秘密保护的目的而使该源代码成为公共领域，因此可能破坏商业秘密声明。如果担心其商业秘密的某些方面可能是公开的，原告还可能要考虑其所谓的商业秘密是否构成“汇编”商业秘密。在某些司法管辖区中，原告声称其商业秘密是已知要素的组合，而商业秘密可能构成“汇编”，每种要素可能属于公共领域，但这些要素的组合是秘密且有价值的。例如，合并公开可用信息的数据库可能具有收集，组织或分析该信息的商业秘密方式。避免损害商业秘密主张的专利主张构建论点如果诉讼涉及相关的商业秘密和专利权利要求，则原告必须使定义专利条款的权利要求结构与其商业秘密地位保持一致。在权利要求的构造中进行的论证，尤其是在表明本领域技术人员将理解一个权利要求术语包括某些主题的论点时，可以充分扩大专利的范围，使原告暴露于专利公开包含商业秘密的论点。在这种情况下，该专利可以看作是公开披露了试图保护作为商业秘密的同一主题。原告应确保他们在提出索赔时所采取的立场不会无意中取消他们同时追求的商业秘密索赔。进行合并诉讼可以为软件原告提供宽广的救济。但是这样做并非没有风险。在提出和诉讼合并诉讼时，软件原告应牢记这些技巧，以最大程度地提高成功的机会。警报：联合诉讼系列第三部分：在商业秘密，版权和专利法交叉口对被告进行软件争议的提示随着公司越来越多地采用多种法律制度来保护知识产权，被告面临着更多的联合诉讼，他们需要同时抵御商业秘密，专利和版权主张的合并。这种诉讼通常发生在软件纠纷中，增加了被告的风险，并造成了多个脆弱的侧翼。这些争端正在各级法院解决，包括正在审理的Google诉Oracle最高法院案，该案涉及专利和版权主张的重叠。这个由三部分组成的系列文章的前两期介绍了合并诉讼的兴起，并提出了原告可以在这些情况下使用的策略。在这最后一部分中，我们为在商业秘密，版权和专利法相交的软件IP纠纷中面临合并诉讼的被告提供了策略。被告应评估潜在的抢先防御当软件争端同时引起版权索赔和州法律商业秘密索赔时，被告应分析可能的抢先抗辩。《版权法》明确禁止州法律主张“等同于版权总体范围内的任何专有权。”许多联邦巡回法院使用自己的测试来确定是否适用抢占。例如，第九巡回法院认为，在以下情况下，根据《版权法》提出的主张优先于州法律的主张：（1）有争议的作品必须属于版权法的主题之内，并且（2）根据州法律授予的权利必须等同于受版权法保护的内容。如果原告寻求对“固定”在软件“有形媒体”中的商业秘密盗窃行为进行补救的补救措施，则很可能会满足第九巡回法院的先发制人测试。尽管版权法不会基于联邦《捍卫商业秘密法》优先于商业秘密，但在联邦和州商业秘密主张均存在争议的情况下，追求抢占仍具有优势。在某些情况下，DTSA可能比州法律更有利于抗辩，特别是考虑到联邦地方法院的判例要求原告以足够的特殊性确定其商业秘密。同样，在DTSA联邦标准下，与被告就商业秘密“不可避免地披露”提出异议的情况可能要好于某些州法律制度，因此，确保先发制人的州法商业秘密主张具有优势。被告应调查原告通过公开披露放弃商业秘密保护的地方-包括原告自身的版权和专利被告经常检查已发表的文章和专利，以了解他们是否披露了原告所谓的商业秘密。对于版权注册，他们应该做同样的事情。最近的GEICO诉摩ri座管理系统案突出显示了原告试图获得版权保护的尝试如何能够促进被告对原告的商业秘密的攻击。在GEICO中，原告声称被告就其医疗计费软件盗用了其所谓的商业秘密。该医疗计费软件的源代码已提交至美国版权局，未经修改。结果，法院作出了对被告有利的简易判决，裁定原告的所谓商业秘密实际上不是秘密。该决定强调了被告可以通过搜查原告（和第三方）的公开披露（包括专利和版权申请）来获得价值。被告还应寻求其他可能不受保护的披露途径，包括原告与客户或其他第三方共享所谓的秘密信息的地方。被告应在对商业秘密和版权主张提起诉讼时评估潜在的逆向工程辩护与专利案件不同，逆向工程或其他独立开发是商业秘密案件（尤其是软件案件）的有力辩护。结果，原告提起针对商业秘密盗窃或版权侵权的其他索赔，可以提供逆向工程辩护，而在仅以专利权利要求为例的情况下将无法获得。对版权软件进行逆向工程和反汇编也可能是对版权侵权的抗辩。为访问有关软件功能原理的信息而创建的临时副本可能受到合理使用原则的保护，这是对版权侵权指控的辩护。逆向工程仍然不能成为专利侵权索赔的抗辩理由，因此面临多重索赔的被告需要分析提出这种抗辩理由的价值和风险。由于被告可能会看到合并诉讼的增加，因此牢记这些技巧应该有助于进行强大的辩护。Source:https://www./news/insight/2020/2020-08-19-tips-defendants-litigating-software-disputesEach article is copyrighted to their original authors. The news is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice.
|
