【编者按】 本案中，被告Versata在其DCM软件中使用了原告XimpleWare根据GPLv2.0开源的XML软件中的部分代码，并将DCM软件销售给其客户Ameriprise等公司（下称“Versata客户被告”）使用。XimpleWare基于其拥有的与XML软件相关的三项专利，向法院提出的诉讼主张之一是Versata客户被告使用DCM软件的行为构成专利直接侵权。在解决此争议点时法院指出，在Versata客户被告遵守GPLv2.0条款的前提下，GPLv2.0明确允许其对XML源代码进行纯粹的使用；即使上游分发方Versata违反许可证条款，在Versata客户被告本身不违反GPLv2.0的情况下，其使用行为不会受到限制。若要指控Versata客户被告构成专利直接侵权，必须证明Versata客户被告在违反GPLv2.0条款的情况下进行了分发。但由于XimpleWare无法举证证明Versata客户被告存在分发DCM软件（其中包含XML代码）的行为，法院驳回了XimpleWare该诉讼主张。从法院的论述中可看出，单纯的“使用”行为并不触发GPLv2.0的条件，“分发”行为才是GPLv2.0条件的触发器。

开放原子开源基金会发起的源译识(Contransus)社区以“在共译中凝聚开源共识”为宗旨，对开源相关许可证、域内外司法判决、专业书籍、重点报告等内容进行专业可信的翻译。如您对本社区或译文有任何建议，欢迎订阅或联系translation@openatom.io.

 

判决英文原文：

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2013cv05161/271648/142/

判决双语版（全文）：

司法案例翻译/英译中-XimpleWare v. Versata Software et al 一审 2014.pdf · master · Contransus · AtomGit

 

01.

判决译文节选

 

The Customer Defendants each move to dismiss XimpleWare's claims of direct infringement on the basis that XimpleWare has failed to plead facts showing distribution of the DCM software by any Customer Defendant.

涉案客户被告均提出动议，以XimpleWare未能提出事实证明任何涉案客户被告分发了DCM软件为由，请求驳回XimpleWare的直接侵权主张。

In dismissing XimpleWare's claims for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants in the FAC, the court held that regardless of the actions of the Versata Defendants, under the GPL the Customer Defendants each "retain the right to use XimpleWare's software so long as the customer does not itself breach the license by 'distributing' XimpleWare's software." Unchanged in the SAC is XimpleWare's allegation that the Customer Defendants "infringe and continue to willfully infringe the Patents by using the infringing Versata products." As use is expressly permitted under the GPL, the court's conclusion on this point is likewise unchanged: the SAC fails to state a claim for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants based on their use of XimpleWare's code included in the DCM software.

在驳回XimpleWare在FAC中对涉案客户被告提出的直接侵权主张时，法院认为，无论涉案Versata被告的行为如何，根据GPL，“只要客户本身不因‘分发’XimpleWare的软件而违反许可证”，则涉案客户被告都“保留使用XimpleWare软件的权利。”XimpleWare在SAC中仍然保留对涉案客户被告“通过使用侵权的Versata产品侵犯并持续故意侵犯专利权”的指控。由于GPL明确允许使用行为，法院就这一点的结论仍然没有改变：SAC因涉案客户被告对包含在DCM软件中的XimpleWare代码使用行为而提出的直接侵权主张无法得到支持。

While use is unrestricted under the GPL, distribution is not. The GPL permits distribution only if the distributing party satisfies several specific conditions, including among other things including copy of the GPL along with the distributed program. The court previously held that XimpleWare had adequately alleged the Customer Defendants failed to satisfy the conditions for distribution of XimpleWare's software. Accordingly, the "only real issue to resolve" was "whether XimpleWare has sufficiently alleged that its software was 'distributed' by the customers when they shared the software with their independent contractors, franchisees, and producers." The court further held that XimpleWare had not, and dismissed its claims against the Customer Defendants. However, the court granted XimpleWare leave to amend to cure this defect.

虽然GPL不限制使用行为，但却对分发行为作出了限制。只有在分发方满足若干特定条件的情况下（包括随分发程序附上GPL的副本）GPL才允许分发。法院先前认为，XimpleWare已充分指控涉案客户被告未能满足分发XimpleWare软件的条件。因此，“唯一真正需要解决的问题”是“XimpleWare是否充分指控了客户在与其独立承包商、特许经营商和制造商共享软件时‘分发’了其软件”。法院进一步认为，XimpleWare没有就此进行充分指控，因此驳回了其对涉案客户被告的诉讼请求。不过，法院准许XimpleWare修正起诉状以弥补这一缺陷。

 

翻译： 薛杨洁

审校： 刘伟、郭雪雯