智能手錶將引發新的訴訟

When executives at Valencell, a North Carolina-based tech company, agreed to meet Apple researchers in 2013 to discuss the heart-rate sensor technology they had developed for mobile fitness trackers, they probably envisioned a potentially lucrative partnership with one of the wealthiest companies in the world.

Valencell是一家總部設在美國北卡羅來納州的科技公司。2013年，該公司的管理層曾同意與蘋果(Apple)公司的研究人員進行會面，討論Valencell早前爲移動健康跟蹤設備所研發的心率感應技術。當時Valencell的管理層或許期待能與全球最富有的公司之一建立起有望帶來豐厚利潤的合作關係。

Apple was, at the time, believed to be creating a watch that would incorporate the technology used in its iPhones and iPads. Any deal incorporating Valencell’s fitness technology could be particularly profitable for the seven-year-old company so Valencell was all too eager to help. But after a series of meetings at which Valencell demonstrated its technology to Apple, no contract was ever offered and the tech giant, Valencell alleges, disappeared.

當時外界認爲蘋果正在研發一種手錶，這款手錶將融入該公司在iPhone和iPad上所使用的那種技術。如果與蘋果達成協議、讓其在產品中融入Valencell的健康技術，可能爲這家當時已成立七年的公司帶來豐厚利潤，因此Valencell當時非常積極地向蘋果提供幫助。但在一系列會面之後——Valencell在會面的過程中向蘋果展示了自己的技術——作爲科技巨頭的蘋果公司並未提出簽訂合同，並且音信全無。

Yet when the Apple Watch was unveiled, Valencell claims the product contained the exact functions that it had been showing to Apple — and Valencell has filed a lawsuit to that effect. The lawsuit, filed in January at federal court in North Carolina, also alleges that Apple employees who were working on developing the watch used fake names to download publicly available white papers from their website detailing how the sensors worked. Apple had not yet responded to the claims in court at time of writing and declined to comment to the Financial Times.

但當蘋果手錶(Apple Watch)面世時，Valencell稱，該產品包含了與自己曾向蘋果展示過的完全一樣的功能——Valencell甚至還就此事提起了訴訟。這項訴訟於今年1月在北卡羅來納州的聯邦法院提出，其中還聲稱蘋果公司負責蘋果手錶研發工作的僱員使用假名，從Valencell的網站下載了公開發布的白皮書，白皮書中對感應器的工作原理做了詳細介紹。截至記者撰稿時（原文發表於3月16日——譯者注），蘋果仍未在法庭上就Valencell的指控做出迴應，也拒絕就此事向英國《金融時報》置評。

“Apple is knowingly using Valencell’s patented technology in an effort to achieve a licensing rate that is below a reasonable royalty,” Valencell’s lawyers allege in the lawsuit. Apple had decided “that the benefits of infringing upon Valencell’s patented technology outweigh the risk of being caught and ultimately forced to pay damages”.

Valencell公司的律師在起訴書中聲稱：“蘋果公司正在有意使用Valencell的專利技術，希望藉此實現低於合理水平的許可費。”蘋果公司早已認定，“侵犯Valencell技術專利權所帶來的收益，超過了被控侵權並最終被迫賠償損失的風險。”

While the case may seem a straightforward intellectual property dispute, it is also one of a handful of lawsuits around the technology used in the emerging field of smartwatches. Lawyers are not expecting the same multi-million-dollar litigation boom that was seen in the patent wars stemming from the first smartphones, but they are predicting further claims as the market matures and a wider range of companies seek to create watches with ever-improved technology and design features.

這起訴訟看起來似乎是一個簡單明確的知識產權爭端，但它還是有關智能手錶這一新興領域所用技術的爲數不多的幾起訴訟之一。律師們不認爲此案會掀起金額高達數百萬美元的訴訟熱潮，就像第一代智能手機曾引出的專利權大戰那樣；但他們預計，隨着市場逐步成熟以及更多企業試圖創造出技術和設計特性不斷改進的智能手錶，還會有更多的訴訟出現。

The battles between major tech companies including Apple, Nokia, HTC, Google and Sony over smartphone technology began in late 2009 when Nokia and Apple sued each other for alleged infringement of various patents. In the ensuing years, lawsuits, countersuits and trade complaints have mounted, resulting in verdicts and settlements that have reached and sometimes exceeded $1bn. Some cases are still going on.

包括蘋果、諾基亞(Nokia) 宏達電(HTC)、谷歌(Google)和索尼(Sony)在內的科技巨頭圍繞智能手機技術展開的戰爭始於2009年末，當時諾基亞和蘋果都把對方告上了法庭，互相指控對方侵犯了己方的多項專利。在接下來的幾年間，訴訟、反訴訟以及貿易申訴的數量大增，由此產生了金額高達、有些時候甚至超過10億美元的判決與和解。有些訴訟時至今日仍在進行。

Last year, Apple and Ericsson began a dispute over whether the Swedish technology group’s 4G mobile patents are essential for the manufacture of the iPhone and how much Apple should pay if they are. It was settled in December 2015 with a patent licensing deal between the companies.

去年，蘋果與瑞典科技巨頭愛立信(Ericsson)展開了一場訴訟，雙方爭論的問題是：愛立信的4G移動專利對於iPhone的生產製造而言是否不可或缺，如果答案是肯定的，蘋果又應當爲此支付多少錢。此案於2015年12月達成和解，兩家公司之間達成了一項專利許可協議。

Alan Fisch, an intellectual property lawyer at Fisch Sigler in Washington DC, says the level of claims will depend on how popular the watches become. “Smartwatch patent battles will increase or decrease as a function of the demand for the product itself,” he says. “Substantial patent disputes often follow a substantial demand for a new product class. This was true for sewing machines in the 1800s, disposable diapers in the 1900s and smartphones in the 2000s.”

艾倫•菲什(Alan Fisch)是華盛頓特區菲什•西格勒(Fisch Sigler)律師事務所的一名知識產權律師。他表示，訴訟的數量水平將取決於智能手錶未來的流行程度。 他說：“智能手錶專利戰的數量，將隨着產品自身需求量的增減而變化。大規模的專利糾紛通常會隨着市場對一種新興產品類型的龐大需求而出現。十九世紀縫紉機問世時、二十世紀一次性尿布出現時以及二十一世紀智能手機誕生時都出現了這種情況。”

Analysts at Gartner, a technology research company, expect the market for smartwatches to soar, with sales projected to rise 6 per cent from 30.32m units in 2015 to 50.4m units this year, generating about $11.5bn in revenues. That figure is projected to increase even further in 2017 to 66.71m units.

科技行業研究公司高德納(Gartner)的分析師預計，智能手錶的市場將迎來飛躍，預計今年智能手錶的銷售量將從2015年的3032萬臺增長至5040萬臺，增幅達到6%，由此創造出約115億美元的營收。2017年智能手錶的銷售量預計將進一步增長至6671萬臺。

Kurt Calia, a litigation partner at Covington & Burling in Silicon Valley, says that, so far, there is not the same demand for smartwatches that there has been for smartphones, but that could change as the technology develops and more companies introduce their own versions. Still, the market is never likely to be as big because smartwatches are not considered as essential as smartphones have become.

硅谷科文頓柏靈律師事務所(Covington & Burling)的訴訟合夥人柯特•卡利亞(Kurt Calia)表示，到目前爲止，人們對智能手錶的需求沒有達到對智能手機的需求曾有的規模，但隨着技術的發展以及越來越多的公司發佈自己的智能手錶產品，這種情況可能發生變化。但智能手錶市場永遠也不可能像智能手機那樣龐大，因爲智能手錶在人們看來不像智能手機那樣不可或缺。

“A lot of the foundational technology that formed the basis of the fight in the smartphone wars is still applicable, like touch screens,” says Mr Calia. Many of these disputes have now been resolved through lawsuits. “But there could be a number of other areas that are unique to smartwatches, such as biometric sensors that monitor your pulse. You can’t do that with your smartphone. Or around flexible displays, there’s a whole lot of technology around miniaturisation. If and when there are lawsuits I suspect it’ll be on those sorts of technologies.”

卡利亞指出：“大量構成智能手機專利戰爭議點的基礎性技術，同樣適用於智能手錶，例如觸摸屏。”很多這類爭議現已通過訴訟的形式得到了解決。“但還有其他幾個領域是智能手錶所獨有的，例如能夠監控你脈搏的生物感應器。你無法通過智能手機實現這種功能。又或者是有關柔性顯示器的專利，目前已有大量關於微型化的技術。如果有朝一日出現了有關智能手錶技術的訴訟，我猜測將會是有關智能手錶所獨有的那一類技術。”

He cited a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas in which a patent that covered security systems, where a smartwatch could be used to turn on or off a car alarm, was in dispute. In that case, last June, Colorado-based Intellectual Capital Consulting sued Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, LG, Sony and car manufacturers including Audi, BMW and General Motors. It claimed they were infringing its patent for remote car start, lock and alarm systems via smartwatch.

他援引了德克薩斯州東區(Eastern District of Texas)聯邦法院審理的一起案件，其中爭議的焦點是一項涵蓋安全系統的專利技術，通過該技術可以將智能手錶用於打開或關閉汽車報警器。在去年6月的這起案件中，總部位於科羅拉多州的Intellectual Capital Consulting（簡稱ICC)起訴了蘋果、三星(Samsung)、聯想(Lenovo)、LG、索尼和包括奧迪(Audi)、寶馬(BMW)、通用汽車(General Motors)在內的多家汽車製造商。ICC宣稱，這些企業侵犯了它的一項專利，該專利是通過智能手錶遙控汽車的啓動、上鎖以及警報系統。

“That’s an example where there’ll be a distinct point of function; those are the kinds of things we’ll probably see,” Mr Calia says. “There’s unlikely to be the big titan v titan litigation that we saw in the smartphone wars.”

卡利亞表示：“在這個案例中，訴訟圍繞的是一個明確的功能點；那將是我們很可能看到的訴訟類型。不太可能出現像我們在智能手機專利戰中所看到的巨頭對巨頭的大規模訴訟。”

Mauricio Uribe, a partner in Seattle with the intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens, says it is unlikely there will be a rash of claims over smartwatches because, in addition to it being a smaller market than smartphones, they do not work in the same way.

知識產權律師事務所克諾布馬滕斯(Knobbe Martens)駐西雅圖的合夥人毛裏西奧•烏里布(Mauricio Uribe)表示，不太可能一下子出現大量有關智能手錶的專利權訴訟，不僅是因爲智能手錶的市場規模比智能手機市場小，還因爲智能手錶和智能手機的工作模式也不一樣。

“Other than some of the more generic Bluetooth or WiFi standards, the operation of smartwatches to date does not involve standardised technologies,” he says. “This makes patent evaluations more specific to the individual devices and does not lend itself to widespread licensing efforts akin to the smartphones.”

他指出：“除了某些更加通用的藍牙或WiFi技術標準，到目前爲止智能手錶的運行沒有涉及到標準化技術。這使得相關專利的估值更加細化到個體設備，並且不能像智能手機領域那樣用於大範圍的專利許可發放。”

In the Valencell lawsuit, the problem began in February 2013 when Liang Hoe, at the time a senior partnership manager at Apple, contacted Valencell to discuss the latter’s heart-rate sensor technology. Talks between the two companies progressed and in June 2013 Dr Steven LeBoeuf, the co-founder of Valencell, met Apple representatives to discuss using some of its features in Apple’s products, the lawsuit says.

在Valencell一案中，問題始於2013年2月，時任蘋果高級合夥人經理的Liang Hoe聯繫了Valencell，討論後者的心率感應技術。起訴書稱，兩家公司之間的會談取得了進展，Valencell的聯合創始人史蒂文•勒伯夫博士(Dr Steven LeBoeuf)於2013年6月會見了蘋果公司的代表，商討將Valencell的某些特性用於蘋果公司的產品。

In the summer of that year, Valencell demonstrated a watch to about 15 Apple employees that included a heart-rate monitor. Apple was sent some of the products powered by Valencell’s technology, known as PerformTek, the lawsuit alleges, and until March 2014 Apple carried out detailed testing on the products and analysed their circuitry. In December that year, there was another meeting with Dr LeBoeuf. By April 2015, Apple began shipping its watch, without ever negotiating a contract with Valencell, it is alleged. The North Carolina tech company is accusing Apple of infringing four of its patents and of unfair and deceptive trade practices.

那一年夏天，Valencell向約15名蘋果員工展示了一款帶有心率監測器的手錶。起訴書稱，蘋果收到了採用Valencell技術的幾款產品，這項技術名爲PerformTek；截至2014年3月，蘋果對這些產品進行了詳細的測試，並分析了它們的電路結構。那一年的12月，蘋果又與勒伯夫博士舉行了一次會面。到了2015年4月，蘋果的智能手錶產品開始出貨，據稱蘋果始終沒有與Valencell協商訂立合同。Valencell現已起訴蘋果侵犯自己的四項專利以及採取不公平和欺騙性的商業手段。

While the majority of legal disputes over smartwatches are bound to hinge on intellectual property rights, they are not the only issues engaging lawyers.

雖然絕大多數有關智能手錶的法律爭端都不可避免地圍繞着知識產權，但知識產權並不是唯一需要律師出馬的問題。

In the EU, regulation that takes effect in March gives smartwatch makers an advantage: customs agents now have the right to seize any counterfeit goods that pass through a country in the trade bloc. Previously, if the goods were shipped from China, en route to the US, for example, customs officers did not have the right to seize them, says Daniel Marschollek, a disputes partner at Norton Rose Fulbright in Frankfurt. “For sure there are counterfeit smartwatches out there,” Mr Marschollek says. “We have for a considerable period of time represented the then world-market leader in cell phones and whatever they launched was immediately copied.”

在歐盟(EU)，今年3月生效的一項法律賦予了智能手錶生產商一項有利條件：海關官員現在有權沒收途徑歐盟任一成員國的任何僞造商品。諾頓羅氏律師事務所(Norton Rose Fulbright)駐法蘭克福的訴訟合夥人丹尼爾•馬斯科萊克(Daniel Marschollek)表示，以前的情況是，如果貨物從比方說中國發出，正在運往美國的途中，歐盟的海關官員沒有權利將其沒收。馬斯科萊克稱：“毫無疑問市場上存在僞造的智能手錶產品，我們曾在很長一段時間裏代理當時手機領域的世界市場領導企業，那時不管他們發佈什麼產品，都會立刻被仿冒。”

Then there is the long-shot case filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a group called Coalition Against Distracted Driving against companies including Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and Google. It asked for at least $1bn annually to fund a public education campaign to explain the risks of using smartwatches while driving.

還有一起不大站得住腳的訴訟，由一個名叫“反走神駕駛聯盟”(Coalition Against Distracted Driving)的團體在洛杉磯縣加州高等法院提起，被告方是包括蘋果、三星、微軟(Microsoft)、谷歌在內的多家企業。該團體要求這些企業每年至少支付10億美元，以支持一項向公衆解釋開車時使用智能手錶風險的教育活動。

And in a David v Goliath dispute, a 32-year-old man from Wales won a lawsuit against Apple over a crack in his Apple Watch Sport, which he noticed 10 days after he bought it in July. The tech giant refused to reimburse him because it said the claim was not covered by warranty, but Gareth Cross challenged them in a small claims court in Aberystwyth, Wales, saying the company had claimed it was scratch-resistant. Apple was ordered to refund the watch, plus Mr Cross’s legal costs, and may have to change its marketing claims as a result. Mr Cross told the BBC that despite the dispute, he would be buying another Apple Watch.

而在一起近似於螞蟻對大象的訴訟案中，32歲、來自英國威爾士的加雷思•克羅斯(Gareth Cross)將蘋果公司告上了法庭。克羅斯去年7月購入運動版蘋果手錶(Apple Watch Sport)，10天后發現手錶上有一道裂痕，但蘋果公司拒絕給他退款，稱這一問題並不在產品的保修範圍以內。於是，克羅斯在威爾士阿伯里斯特威斯(Aberystwyth)的一個小額求償法庭上起訴了蘋果公司，稱蘋果早前曾號稱其智能手錶是耐刮擦的。蘋果被判退還智能手錶價款，並承擔克羅斯的訴訟費用，可能還得改變自己的營銷宣傳語。克羅斯對英國廣播公司(BBC)表示，雖然經歷了法律糾紛，他還是會再買一隻蘋果手錶。