2013年12月10日 星期二

美國最高法院將對軟體專利(CII)表明態度- CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.

這件案例涉及CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.訴訟中軟體專利可專利的議題,相關資訊可部落格文章:

軟體專利(CAFC判決:CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.),此案專利有效性經地院駁回後,CAFC反倒認為專利是否為法定可專利標的並能僅判斷是否為抽象概念,推翻地院判決。
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html
USPTO對CLS Bank判決的回應。
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/07/usptocls-bank.html

相關討論議題關於軟體專利的可專利性(35USC101),此案中專利權人Alice Corp.擁有專利US5970479(這是這件訴訟中系爭專利之一,但為多件專利的最早母案),專利範圍之一關於電腦執行的資料處理系統,可以客製多方風險管理交易契約,技術先取得關係人雙方輸入的契約資訊,相關資料的儲存手段,以及根據雙方考量得到契約內容的資料處理手段。

1. A computer-based data processing system to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts having a future time of maturity, the system comprising:
at least one stakeholder input means by which ordering stakeholders can input contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes, and said contract data specifying entitlements due at maturity for said range of future outcomes, and a consideration due to a counter-party stakeholder;
at least one counter-party stakeholder input means by which at least one counter-party stakeholder can input registering data, independent of said stakeholder entering said contract data, as to a likelihood of each outcome in said range of future outcomes for one or more of said predetermined phenomena;
a data storage means linked with each said stakeholder input means and linked with each said counter-party stakeholder input means to store said contract data and said registering data; and
data processing means, linked with the data storage means, for pricing and matching contracts from said contract data and said registering data, said pricing including calculating a counter-consideration derived from said likelihoods and said entitlements, and said matching including comparing said consideration and said counter-consideration to match an offered contract with at least one of said counter-party stakeholders.
就字面來看,專利範圍如解決一般人為方法的一般軟體手段。

再看看另一訴訟系爭專利US7725375,此案為上述母案479案的後續案,專利範圍"升級"到可以連結線上交易契約服務,比如以下Claim 26,明顯連結到硬體特徵:

26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:
a communications controller,
a first party device, coupled to said communications controller,
a data storage unit having stored therein
(a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and
(b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and
a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to
(a) receive a transaction from said first party device via said communications controller;
(b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and
(c) generate an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or said third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.

不論是否引入硬體特徵,連結到Bilski判例,但核心仍為軟體實現的專利。

此案經地院判定專利無效,但CLS針對專利有效性提出確認之訴(declaratory judgment),上訴到CAFC,CAFC作出en banc決定(en banc: http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/10/en-banc.html),判決顯示不同於地院的判決,認為此案仍為法定可專利標的,符合美國專利法第101條的可專利標的的規定。

最高法院將日前同意受理此案(No. 13-298 (Supreme Court 2013)),開始閱卷,預料會產生等同Bilski且具有影響的判例。

資料參考:Patently-O
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/280082/trials+appeals+compensation/Supreme+Court+Docket+Report+December+6+2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/us-usa-court-software-idUSBRE9B50QJ20131206


updated, 本案判決結論:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank.html
後續影響:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/10/alice-v-cls-bank101.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/07/cls-banksamsungapple.html

Ron

沒有留言: