2017年3月20日 星期一

抽象概念的軟體專利討論 - Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (Fed. Cir. 2017)

抽象概念的軟體專利討論 - Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Intellectual Ventures (IV)是個有名的NPE,Captial One為美國金融控股公司,2015年曾有爭議,當時系爭專利有3件,其中有2件被認定屬於抽象概念,而留下一件繼續侵權審理,CAFC結論是侵權不成立。

"We affirm the district court’s judgment of invalidity with respect to the claims of the ’137 and ’382 patents and the judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ’587 patent based on the district court’s claim construction."

2015年CAFC判決:http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1506.Opinion.7-1-2015.1.PDF

本部落格報導:Intellectual Ventures的軟體專利為抽象概念 - IV v. Capital One Bank (CAFC 2015)(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/07/intellectual-ventures-iv-v-capital-one.html

這回2017年版,又是這兩個公司的侵權訴訟,IV繼續拿出不同的專利,同樣的程序從地方法院再走一次,故事也幾乎一樣,有101問題,留下一件繼續審理,遇到禁反言問題而侵權不成立。

案件資訊:
原告/上訴人:INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
被告/被上訴人:CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
系爭專利:US7,984,081 (’081), US6,546,002 (’002),  US 6,715,084 ('084)

本案例緣起IVCapital One提出侵權告訴,在地方法院時,Capital One提出反壟斷的反訴,另主張系爭專利中'081與'002為不可專利的發明。地院作出'081與'002不具可專利性,以及'084專利在禁反言的阻礙下侵權不成立的決定。IV對此提出上訴。

US7,984,081 (’081)
關於一種管理XML文件的技術,相關系統匯入XML文件,根據商業規則處理這些文件後,根據定義好的資料格式匯出XML文件,請求項21界定一操作XML文件的裝置,有個明確的硬體元件 - 處理器,再以如同功能性用語的撰寫方式描述功能,如"a component that organizes data components of one or more XML documents into data objects; ...a component that detects modification of the data in the dynamic documents via the user interface ..."。


21. An apparatus for manipulating XML documents, comprising:
a processor;
a component that organizes data components of one or more XML documents into data objects;
a component that identifies a plurality of primary record types for the XML documents;
a component that maps the data components of each data object to one of the plurality of primary record types;
a component that organizes the instances of the plurality of primary record types into a hierarchy to form a management record type;
a component that defines a dynamic document for display of an instance of a management record type through a user interface; and
a component that detects modification of the data in the dynamic document via the user interface, and in response thereto modifies a data component in an XML document.
US6,546,002 (’002)
關於實現智慧與行動的菜單介面程式,讓使用者可以遠端而動態地存取程式、應用程式、超連結書籤、網路位址、電話號碼、電視頻道、收音機頻道、使用者資料等資料。請求項1界定一個接收到使用者者資源與資訊的方法,主要是能夠以行動介面顯示出使用者資料。


1. A method for retrieving user specific resources and information stored either on a local device or a network server, the method comprising the steps of:
retrieving a mobile interface from the network server to the local device;
displaying the mobile interface on the local device, the mobile interface including a plurality of pointers corresponding to the user specific resources and information; and
retrieving the user specific resources and information using the plurality of pointers displayed on the mobile interface.
US6,715,084 ('084)
揭露一種根據侵入偵測的結果建立的防火牆,所述侵入偵測包括分析網路流量、簽章偵測等,相關方法如請求項1,能夠對於偵測到有問題的裝置發出警報,方法包括偵測到侵入異常,並比對各裝置的樣板,能夠對異常的裝置發出警報。

1. A method of alerting at least one device in a networked computer system comprising a plurality of devices to an anomaly, at least one of the plurality of devices having a firewall, comprising:
detecting an anomaly in the networked computer system using network-based intrusion detection techniques comprising analyzing data entering into a plurality of hosts, servers, and computer sites in the networked computer system;
determining which of the plurality of devices are anticipated to be affected by the anomaly by using pattern correlations across the plurality of hosts, servers, and computer sites; and
alerting the devices that are anticipated to be affected by the anomaly.

簡單看了一下系爭專利,算是很"具體"的電腦技術,不能說都是抽象的技術,不過要說也可以,因為技術上都是運行在一般目的電腦上,是否有"實質超越"的技術特徵(可考慮為新穎/進步性的特徵)成為是否具有可專利性的關鍵。後見之明是,XML與使用者介面較為抽象,而防火牆的技術確實相對有新穎的特徵。

在CAFC審理中,有幾個議題:

議題A:地院是否有濫權?
對於反壟斷的議題,Capital One提出IV擁有近3500件專利,造成壟斷,然而這個事實並非決定是地院是否濫權的因素,兩者並無關係,地院也沒有濫權審理的問題。

議題B:有關'084專利是否因為「禁反言」而侵權不成立?
IV挑戰地院在"部分"簡易判決中認為因為附帶禁反言(collateral estoppel)而作出不能主張專利權的決定,對此,CAFC認為部分簡易判決確實不符附帶禁反言的要求,但部分簡易判決仍支持附帶禁反言的結論。

"Thus, we conclude that collateral estoppel attaches as a result of the JPMC court’s partial summary judgment order invalidating the ’084 patent."

議題C:'081與'002專利是否為可專利發明?
在2014年Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank判例之後,形成TWO-STEP的可專利性判斷規則,就系爭專利的整體來看,是否是不可專利的自然現象或抽象概念?如果是,還要判斷是否發明元件中的個別元件或其元件組合足夠能轉換為可專利應用?前者涉及抽象概念的判斷,後者則是一種「進步性」的概念



這裡提到的幾個案例:

就'081來看,法官認為,即便發明提供使用者可以轉換XML文件為各種格式,但其中請求項發明並未有"有意義"的技術元件提供非顯而易見的技術貢獻。這裡有個重點是,IV提出XML文件轉換的需求,但是請求項並沒有描述反映這些好處的技術特徵,即使請求項內容描述了根據動態文件的XML文件修正技術,卻僅是描述了其目的,沒有任何步驟是克服XML文件原先遭遇不相容問題的技術元件。


最後,CAFC同意地院對於三件系爭專利的處置(101, 禁反言、不侵權),並沒有認為地院有濫權審理與錯物的問題。

[參考法條(https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54)]

Rule 54. Judgment; Costs

(a) Definition; Form. “Judgment” as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment should not include recitals of pleadings, a master's report, or a record of prior proceedings.
(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
(c) Demand for Judgment; Relief to Be Granted. A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings. Every other final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.
(d) Costs; Attorney's Fees.
...

my two cents:
雖然討論過很多可專利性議題,但是每次法院的意見都仍是具有可參考、可學習與有趣的內容。

本次系爭案並非商業方法,而是電腦技術,但是早期的電腦技術在結構上都可能不符現在的101標準,不過,根據過去不少案例,特別是基於Enfish案的態度,我認為本次爭議的技術應該還算符合101的可專利性標準:即便是一般目的的電腦執行的軟體步驟,如果有電腦技術的增進,或是其中特徵產生"實質超越"的功效,應該仍具有可專利性。如此,本次的結論可能是因為IV有些惡名昭彰有有關


參考電腦技術可專利性報導:
判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1077.Opinion.3-3-2017.1.PDF
(備份:https://app.box.com/s/sq20tlur2nt5jfpqkbaiosf0v2h7il5l

資料參考:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/03/intellectual-ventures-invalid.html

Ron

沒有留言: