《哈佛法律评论》刊登文章 揭露Schedule A (SAD) 诉讼

芝加哥肯特法学院法学教授Sarah Fackrell在其最新发表于《哈佛法律评论》的文章中，揭露了Schedule A诉讼背后的现象，这一模式通过频繁使用“假冒”措辞将设计专利侵权与假冒行为混为一谈，试图规避正常的司法程序并施加不当压力。这种诉讼模式通常借助单方面救济措施，例如资产冻结，以谋求超出公平裁决的利益，同时对法官和政策制定者形成误导。她呼吁严格限制Schedule A模式，并提倡对滥用该模式的行为实施制裁，以维护司法程序的公正性和合理性。

节选自《哈佛法律评论》第138卷第2期

作者：芝加哥肯特法学院法学教授Sarah Fackrell

......

“Schedule A”案件 - 过去十年左右，某些联邦法院收到大量针对一组在线卖家的诉讼，指控他们侵犯了各种知识产权。在这些案件中，被告的姓名不会出现在诉状的封面上，而是列在一个单独的文件中，通常标注为“Schedule A”。该文件通常至少在案件开始时是保密提交的。原告经常坚持认为，为了阻止恶意假冒者的逃避行为，案件开始时必须对被告的姓名，甚至有时是他们自己的姓名或专利号保密。一些法官，尤其是位于伊利诺伊北区法院的法官，允许甚至鼓励这种做法。这些法官经常批准“Schedule A”原告获得一些本应属于非常措施的救济，例如在被告不知道他们被起诉的情况下，批准单方冻结其资产的命令。

最初，这些案件几乎仅涉及商标侵权指控。然而，从大约2019年开始，一些“Schedule A”案件开始包括外观设计专利侵权的指控。但即使这些案件仅指控外观设计专利侵权，而没有任何形式的商标侵权，它们在诉状中仍然频繁使用“假冒”（Counterfeit）的措辞。例如，在一起涉及雪刷外观设计专利的案件中，原告将被指控的产品定义为“假冒品”（Counterfeit Copies），并在整个诉状中广泛使用该术语。另一案件中，原告指控某款空气净化器的外观设计专利被侵犯，并声称“被主张的专利正被一伙外国假冒者侵犯，这些人意图利用毫无戒心的在线消费者。”原告随后进一步指控，每位被告“已销售侵犯原告知识产权的假冒/侵权产品”，并在诉状中频繁使用“假冒”相关措辞，尽管诉状中没有任何商标侵权的指控，更不用说实际假冒。

在另一起涉及“环形玩具”的外观设计专利案件中，原告将被告称为“假冒者”，附上了一份关于“假冒和盗版商品”的报告，作为其唯一公开提交的证据。然而，该报告中没有提到外观设计专利。原告声称该报告与案件相关，是因为“被告使用的第三方服务商通常对新卖家的身份验证和确认不够充分，允许假冒者和侵权者像被告这样的人使用虚假或不准确的姓名和地址在这些电商平台上注册。”尽管如此，我们只能依据原告的陈述（至少是在公开提交的诉状中）来判断这些被告是否真的是“假冒者”或“侵权者”，因此，该报告是否真正相关尚不明确。然而，这份报告（及类似文件）似乎经常被附在“Schedule A”外观设计专利的诉状中。

“假冒”措辞似乎在某种程度上帮助说服法官定期为“Schedule A”原告提供非常措施。在一起近期判决中，Durkin法官表示：“在本案及本地区法院经常提交的数百起类似案件中，原告将几十名甚至上百名被告合并在一起起诉，从而节省了数千美元的诉讼费。”Durkin法官还提到，许多法官允许这种形式的诉讼，因为“这是应对国外被告通过互联网在美国销售假冒商品这一流行问题的最有效方式。”

Durkin法官似乎将所有“Schedule A”案件都称为“假冒产品案件”，而不仅仅是那些涉及实际假冒的案件。他并不是唯一一个这么做的人。伊利诺伊北区至少还有三名法官使用了“假冒”或“造假者”等字眼，用于指代所有“Schedule A”案件。在另一个有大量“Schedule A”案件提起的法院——佛罗里达南区，至少有一些法官似乎将实际假冒案件中关于“假冒业务固有的欺骗性”的语言引入了外观设计专利案件，并以“侵权业务固有的欺骗性”为由，为外观设计专利案件中的资产限制令寻找理由。这种趋势反映了原告屡屡将外观设计专利侵权与假冒行为混为一谈的行为，已在某种程度上影响了法官对所有“Schedule A”案件的看法。

尽管这种说法的支持者和法官可能试图以日常意义使用“假冒”一词，但这种表述与实际案件不符，尤其是考虑到这些案件中的外观设计专利侵权指控往往不够有力，甚至可以被视为轻率的指控。在未使用原告商标且产品外观与主张设计不相似的情况下，无法说被告有意图欺骗。这不是假冒，这是竞争。

......

实际假冒行为确实是一个严重的问题，但并非所有侵权行为都是假冒行为。而将侵权描述为假冒则是一个真正的问题，尤其是在外观设计专利法律和政策的讨论中。正如本文所阐述，外观设计专利侵权与实际假冒之间既没有必要的逻辑联系，也没有法律上的联系。即使“假冒”一词被以日常意义使用，仍然存在不匹配的问题，因为设计专利侵权并不总是需要产品的复制，更从不要求有任何欺骗意图。在设计专利的背景下使用“假冒”一词，至多会引起混淆，最糟糕的情况下，这是故意试图误导，可能影响法官（以及其他人）对外观设计专利问题和案件的看法。

需要明确的是，问题不仅仅在于那些使用“假冒”措辞的人错误使用了这个词，而在于他们似乎有意滥用“假冒”一词，以唤起对危险且蓄意不当行为的担忧。这种用法是一种“不准确且试图以此控制他人的法律和道德现实的扭曲”。法官、政策制定者和其他相关人士在外观设计专利相关案件中遇到“假冒”或“假冒行为”一词时，应保持质疑态度。他们应积极思考这些术语为何以及如何被使用，并意识到这些术语可能仅仅是修辞手段，而非事实描述。

虽然这些受众可能了解在涉及版权的案件中，谈及“盗版”是一种修辞手法，但他们不一定意识到当原告在外观设计专利案件中提及“假冒”时，也是一样的。在“Schedule A”案件中，法官需要特别谨慎。如果他们允许原告在设计专利主张中继续使用“Schedule A”模式，就应考虑聘请特别顾问来协助评估侵权主张的合理性，尤其是在TRO阶段。他们不应让“假冒”的光环使他们对这些案件中经常批准的非常措施（如单方面资产冻结）可能存在的问题视而不见。此外，为了平衡“Schedule A”模式固有的不平等，并鼓励仅提交有理据的诉讼，法官应毫不犹豫地对错误限制被告资产的案件实施制裁。如果法官认为“Schedule A”模式对于打击假冒是必要的，则应将其限制在确实涉及假冒的案件中。

更广泛地说，那些真诚使用“假冒”或“假冒行为”一词的人应始终对其定义予以明确。那些在外观设计专利案件中使用这一术语的人应解释他们为何认为这一概念相关，而不是假装或暗示这一联系是显而易见的。那些引用与外观设计专利相关的假冒研究或报告的人，应披露这些研究如何定义“假冒”一词，并清楚说明这些研究如何与外观设计专利相关。最后，鉴于“假冒”一词所承载的修辞和历史负担，我们不应有意将该术语引入外观设计专利法中，以创建“外观设计专利假冒”的学说或概念。

THE COUNTERFEIT SHAM

By Sarah Fackrell, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law

......

“Schedule A” Cases. — In the past decade or so, certain federal courts have received a barrage of complaints accusing large groups of online sellers of infringing various IP rights. In these cases, the defendants are usually listed not on the face of the complaint itself but on a separate document, often labeled “Schedule A.” This document is usually filed, at least initially, under seal. The plaintiffs often insist that they must keep the names of the defendants — and even sometimes their own names or patent numbers — secret, at least at the start of the case, in order to thwart the evasive efforts of nefarious counterfeiters.

A number of judges, especially in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have allowed (and, in at least one judge’s case, perhaps even encouraged) this practice. These judges routinely grant Schedule A plaintiffs forms of relief that are supposed to be extraordinary, such as ex parte orders that freeze the defendants’ assets before the defendants even know they have been sued.

It appears that, early on, most (if not all) of these cases involved claims of trademark infringement. Beginning in approximately 2019, however, some of these Schedule A cases started including claims of design patent infringement. But even when these cases allege only design patent infringement — and not trademark infringement of any kind — they still often include counterfeit rhetoric in their complaints.

For example, in one recent design patent case involving snow brushes, the plaintiff defined the accused products as “Counterfeit Copies,” then sprinkled that phrase liberally throughout the rest of the complaint. In yet another case alleging infringement of a design patent for an air purifier, the plaintiff alleged that “[t]he Asserted Patent is being infringed by a cabal of foreign counterfeiters intent on exploiting unknowing online consumers.” The plaintiff then alleged that each defendant “has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has sold and continues to sell counterfeit and/or infringing products that violate Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights (‘Counterfeit Products’)” and proceeded to use variations of the word “counterfeit” throughout the complaint, even though the complaint contained no allegations of trademark infringement — let alone actual counterfeiting.

In another design patent case over “ring toys,” the plaintiff referred to the defendants as “counterfeiters” and attached, as the only publicly filed exhibit, a report on “counterfeit and pirated goods.” The attached report does not, however, mention design patents. The plaintiff suggested the report was relevant because: Third-party service providers like those used by Defendants do not adequately subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing counterfeiters and infringers such as Defendants to “routinely use false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering with these e-commerce platforms.” See report on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” prepared by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24, 2020) attached as Exhibit 2 and finding that on “at least some e-commerce platforms, little identifying information is necessary” for sellers similar to Defendants and recommending that “[s]ignificantly enhanced vetting of third-party sellers” is necessary.

But we only have the plaintiff’s word (at least in the publicly filed complaint) that the named defendants were, in fact, “counterfeiters” or “infringers.” So it is far from clear that this report is actually relevant at all. Nonetheless, this report (and similar documents) appear to have been attached to Schedule A design patent complaints with some frequency.

Counterfeit rhetoric appears to be playing at least some role in convincing judges to grant Schedule A plaintiffs extraordinary relief on a regular basis. In a recent decision, Judge Durkin stated: In this case, and the hundreds like it routinely filed in this District, plaintiffs join dozens or even hundreds of defendants in a single case, saving themselves thousands of dollars in filing fees. Many judges in this District permit this form of filing because . . . it is the most efficient way to address the epidemic of counterfeit goods being sold in the United States on the internet by defendants located outside the United States.

In this passage, Judge Durkin seemed to be referring to all Schedule A cases, not just ones involving claims of actual counterfeiting. That would be consistent with his official court website, where Judge Durkin refers to all Schedule A cases as “Counterfeit Product Cases.” And, in what would become the Schedule A case to reach the Federal Circuit, Judge Durkin used the word “counterfeit” to describe the accused products, even though that case did not allege any trademark or trade dress infringement — let alone actual counterfeiting. And he’s not alone. At least three other judges in the Northern District of Illinois have used the words “counterfeiting,” “counterfeit,” or “counterfeiters” in ways that seem to refer to all Schedule A cases. In another district where a significant number of Schedule A cases are filed, the Southern District of Florida, at least some judges seem to have imported language from actual counterfeiting cases about “the inherently deceptive nature of the counterfeiting business” into design patent cases, citing “the inherently deceptive nature of the infringing business” to justify asset restraints in design patent cases. Therefore, it seems like efforts to conflate design patent infringement — and other causes of action — with counterfeiting have had some success in shaping the way the judges see all Schedule A cases, not just ones that allege actual counterfeiting.

To the extent that these judges and advocates may be intending to use the word “counterfeiting” in its colloquial sense, there is still a mismatch, especially in light of the fact that the design patent infringement claims brought in Schedule A cases are often not particularly strong; many could even be characterized as frivolous. One can hardly say that defendants are acting with intent to deceive where they are not using the plaintiff’s marks and where their products do not look like the claimed designs. That’s not counterfeiting. It’s competition.

……

Actual counterfeiting is a real problem. But not all infringement is counterfeiting. Describing it as such is a real problem. It is particularly problematic in discussions of design patent law and policy. As this Article has explained, there is no necessary logical or legal connection between design patent infringement and actual counterfeiting. Even when the word “counterfeit” is used in its colloquial sense, there is still a mismatch because design patent infringement does not always require product replication and never requires any intent to deceive. Using the word “counterfeiting” in the context of design patents is, at best, confusing. At worst, it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead that may be coloring how judges (and others) think about design patent issues and cases.

To be clear, the problem isn’t merely that those who use counterfeit rhetoric are using the word “counterfeit” incorrectly. The problem is that they seem to be misusing the word “counterfeit” deliberately, to evoke the specter of dangerous and intentional malfeasance. Used in this way, counterfeit rhetoric is “an inaccurate and manipulative distortion of legal and moral reality.”

Judges, policymakers, and others should be skeptical when the words “counterfeit” or “counterfeiting” are used in connection with design patents. They should actively question how and why those terms are being used and realize that these terms may be being used as a rhetorical tactic, not as a factual description. While these audiences may be likely to understand that talk of “piracy” is a rhetorical flourish in cases involving copyright, they might not necessarily understand that the same thing is happening when plaintiffs talk about “counterfeiting” in design patent cases.

Judges in Schedule A cases should be particularly careful. If they keep letting plaintiffs use the Schedule A model for design patent claims, they should consider hiring special masters to help them evaluate the merits of the infringement claims, especially at the TRO stage. They should not let the aura of counterfeiting blind them to potential problems with the extraordinary forms of relief, such as ex parte asset freezes, that are regularly granted in these cases. And, to counter the imbalances inherent in the Schedule A model and to encourage the filing of only meritorious claims, they should not hesitate to impose sanctions where defendants are wrongfully restrained. If judges believe that the Schedule A model is necessary to combat counterfeiting, they should limit its use to cases that actually involve counterfeiting.

More broadly, those who use the words “counterfeit” or “counterfeiting” in good faith should always define it. Those who use it in connection with design patents should explain why they think it is a relevant concept, instead of pretending or suggesting the connection is obvious. Those who cite studies about counterfeits or counterfeiting in connection with design patents should disclose how those studies define those words. They should also clearly explain how they think that any such studies are relevant to design patents. Finally, in light of all of the rhetorical and historical baggage the word “counterfeiting” carries, we should not intentionally import that term into design patent law to create a doctrine or concept of “design patent counterfeiting.”

原文链接: 

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/the-counterfeit-sham/