美國程序專利法制之探討－以In re Bilski案為中心

In re Bilski-A Legal Research on Us Process Patent

10.6416/SLR.201101.0149

張啟聰(Chi-Tsung Chang)

方法專利 ； 程序專利 ； 商業方法 ； Bilski ； 軟體專利 ； method patent ； process patent ； business method ； Bilski

東吳法律學報

22卷3期（2011 / 01 / 01）

149 - 186

繁體中文

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CAFC)於2008年10月30日，針對美國專利法第101條所列之各項專利適格標的中之「程序」類型，作出重要之判決（In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008)，簡稱In re Bilski 案或本案）。該判決就「程序」專利採取相當嚴格之認定規則，推翻了過去十年來美國法院所傾向採取之寬鬆政策，引起各界熱烈討論。此判決對各種程序類型發明，例如通訊、軟體、資訊、商業方法等，皆有重大之影響。尤因該判決主張具有專利標的適格之程序類型發明必須限定於特定之機器或裝置，或將一特定物品轉變成為一不同的狀態或物體，故可預見的是許多商業方法將因不限定於特定裝置上實施、或未造成形態轉變而無法取得專利，對產業界影響甚鉅。雖美國聯邦最高法院於2010年6 月28 日判決推翻了聯邦巡迴上訴法院的見解，但各界對聯邦最高法院之判決褒貶不一，支持聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決者仍大有人在，可預見就此議題，未來仍將持續發酵。有鑑於此，本文針對聯邦巡迴上訴法院及聯邦最高法院之判決加以分析，就該等判決之適法性及妥當性加以分析檢討，並就專利標的適格之判斷提出個人之淺見，以供學界與實務界參考，盼得拋磚引玉，促進各界對此議題之重視。

On October 30, 2008, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States (CAFC) released its decision over In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008) (”In Re Bilski”), in which the court took a stringent position on patentability of a claimed process, in contrast with the US courts' laissez-faire policy over this issue in the past 10 years, inducing fervent discussions from the public. The said decision is expected to have noteworthy impact on patentability of processes, such as communication, software, information and business methods. In particular, it is expected to affect the patentability of business methods and thus the interests of certain industries, as the decision states that a claimed process is patent-eligible only if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing, while quote a number of business methods are not tied to a particular machine, nor do they transform any article into different states or things. The Supreme Court of the United States (the ”Supreme Court”) did not stand by the CAFC's decision and overturned that decision on June 28, 2010. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's decision is not welcome by all and quite many critics still support the CAFC's decision, indicating relentless discussions on this subject matter are to come. As such, comments to the decisions are provided in this essay based on legal research into the decision's legality and appropriateness, in hopes that more attention will be drawn to the patentability of process in both the academic circle and the industry sector.

1. R. D. ATKINSON & A. S. MCKAY, DIGITAL PROSPERITY: UNDERSTANDING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION (INFO. TECH. & INNOVATION FOUND. 2007), available at http://www.itif.org/files/ditigal_prosperity.pdf (last visited on Sept. 1, 2009).
2. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Class 705 Application Filings and Patents Issued Date, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/pbmethod/applicatonfiling (last visited on Feb. 23, 2009).
3. USPTO WHITE PAPER, AUTOMATED FINANCIAL OR MANAGEMENT DATA PROCESSING METHODS (BUSINESS METHODS) (2000), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/whitepaper.pdf (last visited on Sept. 1, 2009).
4. SOFTWARE|INFO. INDUS. ASS'NSOFTWARE AND INFORMATION: DRIVING THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY(2008), available at http://www.siia.net/estore/globecon-08.pdf
5. 立法院，立法院公報，第92卷第5期3279號一冊，2003年
6. Briam P. Biddinger(2001).Limiting the Business Method Patent: A comparison and Proposed Alignment of European, Japanese and United States Patent Law.FORDHAM L.REV.,69,2523.
7. Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper(2000).Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?.SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L. J.,16,263.
8. Jay Dratler, Jr.(2005).Alice Wonderland Meets the U.S. Patents System.AKRON L. REV.,38,299.
9. Korn, Russell A.(2002).Is Legislation the Answer? An Analysis of the Proposed Legislation for Business Method Patents.FLA. ST. U.L.REV.,29,1367.
10. Krause, William(2000).Sweeping the E-Commerce Patent Minefield: The Need for a Workable Business Method Exception.SEATTLE U.L. REV.,24,79.
11. Matelan, Lois(2007).The Continuing Controversy Over Business Method Patents.FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA. & ENT. L. J.,18,189.
12. Moy, R. Carl(2002).Subjecting Rembrandt to the Rule of Law: Rule-Based Solutions for Determining the Patentability of Business Methods.WM. MITCHELL L. REV.,28,1047.
13. Pollack, Malla(2002).The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents: Common Sense, Congressional Consideration, and Constitutional History.RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L. J.,28,61.
14. Price, Douglas L.(2004).Assessing the Patentability of Financial Services and Products.HIGH TECH. L.,3,141.
15. Raskind, Leo J.(1999).The State Street Bank Decision: The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Methods of Doing Business.FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L. J.,10,61.
16. Sfekas, James S.(2007).Controlling Business Method Patens: How the Japanese Standard for Patenting Software Could Bring Reasonable Limitations to Business Method Patents in the United States.PAC. RIM. L. & POL'Y J.,16,197.
17. Smith, Nicholas A.(2002).Business Method Patents and Their Limits: Justifications, History, and the Emergence of A Claim Construction Jurisprudence.MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV.,9,171.
18. Thomas, John R.(1999).The Patenting of the Liberal Professions.B. C. L. REV.,40,1139.
19. Walterscheid, Edward C.(1994).The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 2).J. P. T. O. S.,76,849.
20. Xiang, Joy Y.(2002).How Wide Should the Gate of "Technology" Be? Patentablity of Business Methods in China.PAC. RIM L. & POL'L. J.,11,795.
21. 李文賢(2005)。專利法要論。台北:翰蘆。
22. 李治安(2001)。商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究。科技法律透析，13(12)，54。
23. 張啟聰(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東吳大學法律學系。

1. 陳龍昇(2012)。由美國Bilski v. Kappos案探討商業方法發明之專利適格性。臺北大學法學論叢，84，231-286。