最近曾經整理美國專利局對可專利性（美國專利法第101條）的態度（
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/101-2014-guidance.html），相關有名的判例如Bilski，現有CLS Bank等，今天最新出爐（美國時間6/19/2014）的最高法院意見針對Alice v. CLS Bank案件表示，很不幸地，這種金融方法認定為抽象概念（abstract idea）不能專利。
判決原文與簡要說明：
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/208/ (updated on May 2, 2025)
過去的報導：
軟體專利（CAFC判決：
CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.）
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
美國最高法院將對軟體專利(CII)表明態度- CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/12/cii-cls-bank-v-alice-corp.html
案情報告：
系爭專利為Alice Corporation所擁有的幾件專利（
US5,970,479 (479 Patent)、US6,912,510 (510 Patent)、US7,149,720 (720 Patent)與US7,725,375 (375 Patent)），其中主要技術是關於兩方交換金融資訊而降低財務風險的技術，相關訴訟涉及(1)交換金融資訊的方法；(2)實現交換金融資訊的電腦系統；(3)儲存執行金融資訊交換方法的程式的儲存媒體。
結果，地方法院、CAFC聯席法官以及最高法院的判決一路下來都認為系爭專利為抽象概念，不可專利。
法院在定義何謂可專利保護的標的時，排除了自然律、自然現象與抽象概念，但判斷這些例外情事時，法院自然要給予一個判斷標準，判斷當以人類智慧堆砌的技術應該要產生某種轉換（transformation，判例
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.），才可能是可專利標的。因此整篇判決多數在討論這個概念，是否系爭專利所主張的專利範圍能將抽象概念轉換為可專利標的（
轉換產生新的東西）。當然，其中很重要的依據就是2010年的Bilski判決，可參考：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/07/bilski.html、
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/07/bilski_20.html。
其中有個關鍵是，執行系爭專利中金融資訊交換的過程中，所有過程都是一般知識，比如建立帳目、得到資料、調整帳目結餘以及發出指令，這些都是真實世界常見動作，當加上一般目的的電腦系統（generic computer），並沒有產生任何現在沒有存在的東西，比如以下節錄的意見：
一些法官循序判斷是否可專利的流程：
- We must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. （判斷權利範圍是否為可專利概念）
- 是否符合判例Mayo（Mayo’s framework）（判斷是否僅使用了一般目的的電腦實現該方法：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/11/blog-post_26.html）
顯然法官認為這些系爭專利經過這些判斷後，並非是可專利的技術標的。
結論：
最高法院法官一致決議，同意之前CAFC判決（這部份已經報導過，而且已經有不少案例採用CAFC態度），認為Alice專利全數不符專利法第101條可專利標的的規定，認為其中技術僅關聯於一般電腦系統，並沒有能轉換抽象的技術為可專利的發明。
Justia Summary
"Alice Corporation holds patents that disclose a scheme for mitigating “settlement risk,” i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation. The patent claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between parties, using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. The patents claim:
a method for exchanging financial obligations;
a computer system configured to carry out that method; and
a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing that method.
CLS, a global network that facilitates currency transactions, challenged the claims as not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. Alice counterclaimed infringement. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski, the district court held that the claims were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. Section 101, which defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit exception for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In applying the exception, patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, must be distinguished from those that integrate the building blocks into something more, making them patent-eligible.
The claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, which is “‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” The method claims, which simply require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea, adding the words “apply it with a computer,” simply combines two steps, with the same deficient result. Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed by the computer at each step are purely conventional: creating and maintaining “shadow” accounts, obtaining data, adjusting account balances, and issuing automated instructions. They do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or improve any other technology or technical field. The system claims are no different in substance from the method claims, reciting a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea."
幾個法官的意見：
法官THOMAS
法官SOTOMAYOR、GINSBURG、BREYER一致認定僅描述商業交易的技術為抽象概念
Ron
