政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/100569

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/100569

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113822/144841 (79%)
Visitors : 51785318 Online Users : 181

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Graduate Institute of TIPM > Theses > Item 140.119/100569

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/100569

Title:	軟體專利與商業方法專利適格性實證研究—以美國最高法院Alice v. CLS Bank判決後續影響為中心 An Empirical Study of the Patent Eligibility of Software Patent and Business Method Patent：One and A Half Year After U.S. Supreme Court Alice v. CLS Bank Decision
Authors:	黃莉婷
Contributors:	宋皇志黃莉婷
Keywords:	軟體專利商業方法專利專利適格性涵蓋商業方法專利過渡期複審程序(CBM
Date:	2016
Issue Date:	2016-08-22 13:35:53 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	美國最高法院於2014 年6 月對Alice v. CLS Bank 案作出判決，對於商業方法專利與軟體專利之專利適格性產生巨大之衝擊。最高法院在Alice v. CLS Bank案專利適格性的判斷上援用了Mayo 案的二步驟測試法則，首先判斷系爭專利是否使用了司法判定不予專利適格標的之類別，再者就專利請求項「個別」及「整體」綜合觀察判斷請求項是否存在發明概念，使其顯著不同於司法判定不予專利適格的類別。而最高法院認為，以消除交割風險為目的之系爭專利與Bilski 案的避險概念相似，屬於商業運作中的基礎經濟實施行為，而為抽象概念。且不論是系爭方法、系統或是媒介專利請求項，皆只是使用了一般電腦功能來完成習知的商業步驟，並未加入了實質的發明概念使其顯著不同於抽象概念，因此系爭專利應不具適格性。然而最高法院除了並未在判決中對於「抽象概念」進行定義外，在發明概念的判斷上，最高法院提出了不能僅是利用普通運算功能之電腦設備來完成抽象概念，而是需與「特定機器」加以結合才能符合專利適格性的要件，但仍未說明「特定機器」之定義，以及方法與「特定機器」間應達到何種程度的結合，才能具備顯著不同於抽象概念的發明概念。根據實證研究結果之建議，「當下級法院能有機會探索並發展見解時，最高法院將得以在重新審視議題時從下級法院的經驗中得到啟發」。因此在最高法院尚未明確解釋專利適格性判斷的細部分析要件時，下級法院之判決經驗與見解不僅將得以協助最高法院對於「專利適格性」的議題做出更適切的詮釋，更是在短期內瞭解司法判決趨勢之方法。因此，本論文蒐集聯邦法院在「2014 年6 月19日最高法院判決日後至2015 年12 月31 日」間引用Alice. v. CLS Bank 案所作成之判決案件主文中判決結果為「系爭專利具備專利適格性」者，以及針對美國發明法案中對於專利適格性此一議題較切為相關之「涵蓋商業方法專利複審程序」(CBM)為實證研究範圍，藉由判決實證分析方法瞭解下級法院與專利審判暨訴願委員會(PTAB)如何在個案中詮釋與適用二步驟測試法則中的「抽象概念」與「發明概念」，並著重於通過適格性判斷之判決，試以對於軟體專利及商業方法專利權人及發明人未來的專利申請方向提出建議。針對判決分析之結果，本論文認為通過二步驟測試法則的請求項要件包含：應在請求項限制中對於機器設備作更進一步的功能描述、對於電腦或機器加入「足夠且有意義」的限制條件(例如限定於特定的產業、使用對象或是機器設備)、並盡可能限縮於抽象概念中的一項特定應用方法。此外，企業在考慮申請軟體專利或商業方法專利時，更應將電腦或網路技術層面之功能提升做為主要的專利申請方向。
Reference:	中文文獻書籍馮震宇，智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究，元照，2003年。劉尚志、陳佳麟，電子商務與電腦軟體之專利保護—發展、分析、創新與策略，翰蘆圖書，2001年。期刊王偉霖，美國商業方法專利之最新發展與趨勢，科技法律評析，2期，頁83-114，2009年6月。宋皇志，方興未艾之電子商務發明專利適格性的爭議，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁153-172，2014年9月。李森堙，Bilski案判決後的美國方法發明專利標的適格性認定，科技法律透析，24卷2期，頁2-7，2012年2月。何美瑩、許維蓉、鄭中人，變動中的可專利客體適格性標準—「Mayo v. Promethus案」之後，10期。頁23-56，2012年7月。洪志勳，美國軟體專利發展回顧及現況分析，科技法律透析，19卷7期，頁17-23，2007年7月。胡心蘭、蔡岳勳，促進抑或是阻礙創新？從法律經濟學角度審視美國商業方法專利之適格性爭議—以In Re Bilski案為例，政大智慧財產評論，7卷2期，頁125-176，2009年10月。馮震宇，從美國商業方法專利談電子商務的發展，月旦法學雜誌，48期，頁97-108，1999年4月。趙慶冷，電腦軟體專利標的適格性之測試法演進—從歐洲觀察美國，智慧財產權月刊，201期，頁5-47，2015年9月。劉國讚、徐偉甄，電腦軟體之專利標的適格性在美國的演變—從Bilski到Alice判決，專利師，22期，頁100-123，2015年7月。學位論文李治安，電子商務商業方法與專利制度，國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文，2001年。網路資訊馮震宇，Alice v. CLS Bank判決案可能翻轉美國軟體專利的遊戲規則，2014年10月21日，http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=10238。英文文獻書籍 MERGERS, ROBERT P., PETER S. MENELL& MARK A. LEMLEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE (2010). MULLER, JANICE M., AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENT LAW (2006). PATTERSON, DAVID A. AND JOHN L. HENNESSY, COMPUTER ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN:THE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE INTERFACE (2009). 期刊 King Chad, Abort, Retry, Fail：Protection for software-related inventions in the wake of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc, 85 CORNELL L. REV.1118 (2000). Lemley, Mark A, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life after Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315 (2011). Estreicher, Samuel, John E. Sexton, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court`s Responsibilities: An Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV 681 (1984). Schecter, Manny, Shawn Ambwani, Alexander Shei & Robert Jain, The effects of alice on covered business method (CBM) reviews, Northwestern Journal of Technologyand Intellectual Property, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2704646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2704646. Wood, Jarrad Lucian & Jonathan R.K. Stroud, Three hundred nos: an empirical analysis of the first 300 denials of institution for inter partes and covered business method patent reviews prior to in re cuozzo speed technologies, 14 THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 112 (2015). Zivojnovic, Ognjen, Patentable Subject Matter after Alice— Distinguishing Narrow Software Patents from Overly Broad Business Method Patents, 30 BERKELEY TECH.L.J. 807 (2015). 網路資訊 Finnegan, Rule Review New Subject Matter Eligibility Interim Guidance After Alice, Mayo, and Myriad: http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/Newsletters/Full_Disclosure/2015/January/FullDisclosure_Jan15_5.html (last visited Feb. 17, 2016). Jack Lu, Surviving Alice: Signs that the patent market has weathered the Alice storm, at least for now (Feb. 7, 2016): http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/07/surviving-alice-signs-patent-market-weathered-alice-storm-least-now/id=65859/. Kevin Emerson Collins, Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”(Nov. 2, 2008): http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/11/professor-colli.html. LTP, Overview of FinTech Patents: Infographic by Relecura: http://letstalkpayments.com/overview-of-fintech-patents-infographic-by-relecura/ (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). Matt Richtel, Are Patents Good or Bad for Electronic Commerce?(August 28, 1998), https://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/08/cyber/cyberlaw/28law.html. Robert Sachs, A Survey of Patent Invalidation Since Alice (Jan. 13, 2015): http://www.law360.com/articles/604235/a-survey-of-patent-invalidations-since-alice. Rob Merges, Symposium: Go ask Alice—what can you patent after Alice v. CLS Bank?,(June. 20, 2014): http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-go-ask-alice-what-can-you-patent-after-alice-v-cls-bank/. Stuart P. Meyer, FEDERAL CIRCUIT CREATES NEW (NON-ALICE) HURDLE FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS (Jun. 29, 2015): http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/06/federal-circuit-creates-new-non-alice-hurdle-for-software-patents.html. Susan Decker, Elizabeth Dexheimer, Wall Street Is Trying to Beat Silicon Valley at Its Own Game: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/disrupting-banks-go-see-what-they-re-doing-at-the-patent-office (last visited Mar. 26, 2016). Timothy B. Lee, Software Is Just Math. Really (Aug. 11, 2011): http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/08/11/software-is-just-math-really/#1a76acc74d74. Timothy B. Lee, Software patents are crumbling, thanks to the Supreme Court (Sep. 12, 2014): http://www.vox.com/2014/9/12/6138483/software-patents-are-crumbling-thanks-to-the-supreme-court. 其他 U.S Patent Trademark Office, White Paper -Automated Business Methods - Section III Class 705(2000). United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106(I): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106(II): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.htm (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). USTPO, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v.Kappos: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-announcements/interim-guidance-determining-subject-matter-eligibility-process-claims(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). USPTO, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). USPTO, July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/trial_practice_guide_48756.pdf (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
Description:	碩士國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所 103364215
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1033642152
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of TIPM] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
215201.pdf	1278Kb	Adobe PDF2	760	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback