美国商业方法专利保护的发展与现状及其对我国的启示
|
摘要
2017年,我国正式对商业方法创新中的技术方案给予专利保护,对商业方法的审查方法还有待明确和完善。从道富银行案确立商业方法的专利保护开始,美国已经有20年的商业方法发明专利审查与司法审判经验。从最初的"实用的、具体的及有形的结果"标准发展为"机器或转换"标准,但这些标准在适用过程中也表现出争议与不足。2014年美国联邦最高法院在Alice案中明确适用"两步测试法"作为可专利性审查的具体标准。美国专利商标局在此方法基础上将可专利性的审查标准进行统一,并发布了新的审查指南用于指导审查实务。美国商业方法专利审查方法的发展演变及规则适用对我国有重要的参考价值。借鉴美国的审查实践,我国应尽快完善商业方法专利的审查标准;在法律适用机制上,我国应加大指导性案例的适用以及法院与专利审查部门之间的互补。
In 2017,China officially granted patent protection for technical solutions in business method innovation. The review method of business method needs to be clear and perfect. Beginning with the establishment of the patent protection of business method in the State Street Bank case in 1998,the United States has 20 years of business method invention patent review and judicial trial experience. From the "useful,concrete and tangible result"standards originally applied to the "machine or transformation"standard,but also in the application process also expressed controversy and deficiencies. In 2014,the US Supreme Court in the Alice case explicitly applied the "two step test methods"for the judgment of patentability. Based on this approach,the US Patent and Trademark Office unifies the methodology for patentability review and has issued new review guidelines to guide review practices. The evolution and application of the US business method patent examination method has important implications for China. Learn from the judicial practice of the United States,we should improve the patent examination standards for business methods in China; in the legal application mechanism,we should increase the application of guiding cases and the complementarity between the court and the patent examination department.
In 2017,China officially granted patent protection for technical solutions in business method innovation. The review method of business method needs to be clear and perfect. Beginning with the establishment of the patent protection of business method in the State Street Bank case in 1998,the United States has 20 years of business method invention patent review and judicial trial experience. From the "useful,concrete and tangible result"standards originally applied to the "machine or transformation"standard,but also in the application process also expressed controversy and deficiencies. In 2014,the US Supreme Court in the Alice case explicitly applied the "two step test methods"for the judgment of patentability. Based on this approach,the US Patent and Trademark Office unifies the methodology for patentability review and has issued new review guidelines to guide review practices. The evolution and application of the US business method patent examination method has important implications for China. Learn from the judicial practice of the United States,we should improve the patent examination standards for business methods in China; in the legal application mechanism,we should increase the application of guiding cases and the complementarity between the court and the patent examination department.
引文
(1)《<专利审查指南>修改解读(上)》,http://www.sipo.gov.cn/zcfg/zcjd/201703/t20170331_1309157.html,访问日期:2018年7月10日。
(2)谢艳霞:《花旗银行两项专利获授权》,载《南方都市报》2003年10月11日第8版;梁霄:《花旗中国专利布局》,载《中国经营报》2009年5月9日第3版。
(3)杨延超:《商业方法专利创造性问题研究》,载《专利代理》2016年第3期。
(4)余翔、邱洪华:《基于判例和立法的美国商业方法专利研究》,载《科技进步与对策》2007年第3期。
(5)State Street Bank&Trust Co.v.Signature Financial Group,Inc.,149 F.3d 1368,1998.
(6)F.Scott Kieff,Pauline Newman,Herbert F.Schwartz,Henry Smith,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2008,p.24.
(7)张子路、唐俊峰:《浅析美国涉及商业方法专利的审查政策历程》,载《专利代理》2017年第2期。
(8)Bilski,545 F.3d 943 Fed.Cir.,2008.
(9)Diamond v.Chakrabarty,447 U.S.303,1980.
(10)Bilski v.Kappos,561 U.S.593,2010.
(11)Bilski v.Kappos,561 U.S.593,2010.
(12)刘银良:《美国商业方法专利的十年扩张与轮回:从道富案到Bilski案的历史考察》,载《知识产权》2010年第6期。
(13)Federal Trade Commission,Patent Assertion Entity Activity,2016,p.15.
(14)Robin Feldman,Tom Ewing,Sara Jeruss,The AIA 500 Expanded:The Effects of Patent Monetization Entities,17 UCLAJournal Law and Technology 1,7(2013).
(15)Colleen V.Chien,Aashish R.Karkhanis,Functional Claiming and Software Patents,Santa Clara University School of Law Legal Studies Research Papers Series,No.06-13(2013).
(16)James Bessen,A Generation of Software Patents,Boston University School of Law Working Paper,No.11-31(2011).
(17)CLS Bank Int'l v.Alice Corp.Pty.Ltd.,768 F.Supp.2d 221,D.D.C.,2011.
(18)CLS Bank Int'l v.Alice Corp.Pty.Ltd.,717 F.3d 1269,Fed.Cir.,2013.
(19)Molecular Pathology v.Myriad Genetics,Inc.,569 U.S.576,2013.
(20)Gottschalk v.Benson,409 U.S.63,1972.
(21)Alice Corp.v.CLS Bank International,573 U.S.,134 S.Ct.2347,2014.
(22)Mayo v.Prometheus,132 S.Ct.1289,2012.
(23)Alice Corp.v.CLS Bank International,573 U.S.,134 S.Ct.2347,2014.
(24)United States Patent and Trademark Office,2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,2014.
(25)United States Patent and Trademark Office,2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,2014.
(26)在2014年Alice案后,联邦巡回上诉法院审理的Enfish案、Rapid Litigation案、McRO案、Finjan案、Berkheimer案以及Vanda案均属于典型案例。基于案件具有重要影响,美国专利商标局均在这些案件审理后发布了备忘录。
(27)刘铭:《涉及商业方法的专利申请的审查思路》,载《中国知识产权报》2016年6月20日第3版。
(28)刘铭:《涉及商业方法的专利申请的审查思路》,载《中国知识产权报》2016年6月20日第3版。
(2)谢艳霞:《花旗银行两项专利获授权》,载《南方都市报》2003年10月11日第8版;梁霄:《花旗中国专利布局》,载《中国经营报》2009年5月9日第3版。
(3)杨延超:《商业方法专利创造性问题研究》,载《专利代理》2016年第3期。
(4)余翔、邱洪华:《基于判例和立法的美国商业方法专利研究》,载《科技进步与对策》2007年第3期。
(5)State Street Bank&Trust Co.v.Signature Financial Group,Inc.,149 F.3d 1368,1998.
(6)F.Scott Kieff,Pauline Newman,Herbert F.Schwartz,Henry Smith,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2008,p.24.
(7)张子路、唐俊峰:《浅析美国涉及商业方法专利的审查政策历程》,载《专利代理》2017年第2期。
(8)Bilski,545 F.3d 943 Fed.Cir.,2008.
(9)Diamond v.Chakrabarty,447 U.S.303,1980.
(10)Bilski v.Kappos,561 U.S.593,2010.
(11)Bilski v.Kappos,561 U.S.593,2010.
(12)刘银良:《美国商业方法专利的十年扩张与轮回:从道富案到Bilski案的历史考察》,载《知识产权》2010年第6期。
(13)Federal Trade Commission,Patent Assertion Entity Activity,2016,p.15.
(14)Robin Feldman,Tom Ewing,Sara Jeruss,The AIA 500 Expanded:The Effects of Patent Monetization Entities,17 UCLAJournal Law and Technology 1,7(2013).
(15)Colleen V.Chien,Aashish R.Karkhanis,Functional Claiming and Software Patents,Santa Clara University School of Law Legal Studies Research Papers Series,No.06-13(2013).
(16)James Bessen,A Generation of Software Patents,Boston University School of Law Working Paper,No.11-31(2011).
(17)CLS Bank Int'l v.Alice Corp.Pty.Ltd.,768 F.Supp.2d 221,D.D.C.,2011.
(18)CLS Bank Int'l v.Alice Corp.Pty.Ltd.,717 F.3d 1269,Fed.Cir.,2013.
(19)Molecular Pathology v.Myriad Genetics,Inc.,569 U.S.576,2013.
(20)Gottschalk v.Benson,409 U.S.63,1972.
(21)Alice Corp.v.CLS Bank International,573 U.S.,134 S.Ct.2347,2014.
(22)Mayo v.Prometheus,132 S.Ct.1289,2012.
(23)Alice Corp.v.CLS Bank International,573 U.S.,134 S.Ct.2347,2014.
(24)United States Patent and Trademark Office,2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,2014.
(25)United States Patent and Trademark Office,2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,2014.
(26)在2014年Alice案后,联邦巡回上诉法院审理的Enfish案、Rapid Litigation案、McRO案、Finjan案、Berkheimer案以及Vanda案均属于典型案例。基于案件具有重要影响,美国专利商标局均在这些案件审理后发布了备忘录。
(27)刘铭:《涉及商业方法的专利申请的审查思路》,载《中国知识产权报》2016年6月20日第3版。
(28)刘铭:《涉及商业方法的专利申请的审查思路》,载《中国知识产权报》2016年6月20日第3版。