地方法院案件資訊：
declaratory judgment（確認之訴）提告人：NETFLIX, INC.
被告/專利權人：ROVI CORPORATION, et al.
系爭專利：
(1) U.S. Patent No. 6,898,762 (“the ’762 patent”);
(2) No. 7,065,709 (“the ’709 patent”);
(3) No. 7,103,906 (“the ’906 patent”);
(4) No. 7,945,929 (“the ’929 patent”); and
(5) No. 7,974,962 (“the ’962 patent”).
緣起：
原告與被告公司都是影音串流服務公司，將要進台灣的Netflix強調在各種裝置螢幕上都可以看到影音串流節目，ROVI也是將影音內容由原本的電視轉換到手機、平板裝置上的服務，服務十分類似。
經簡單檢索，兩家公司都有不少專利，也在數位電視節目表（EPG）的技術上有些佈局。這次原本由Netflix對Rovi等幾間公司的共5件美國專利提起確認之訴（declaratory judgment），而Rovi等公司即提出反訴（counterclaim），宣稱Netflix侵犯其5件專利，另還加上3件額外的專利，Netflix繼續追加對此額外3件專利提出確認之訴，宣稱不侵權，以及專利無效。之後簡易判決則排除了額外追加的3件專利。
以下為系爭專利的簡單資訊，除了IBM的'906專利為有關bookmarking外，其他為互動式電子節目表的技術，看這幾篇專利，顯然Rovi為後進，但是與幾間公司透過授權或買賣取得專利。
(1) U.S. Patent No. 6,898,762 (“the ’762 patent”，原專利權人：United Video Properties, Inc.)
(2) No. 7,065,709 (“the ’709 patent”，原專利權人：United Video Properties, Inc.)
(3) No. 7,103,906 (“the ’906 patent”，專利權人：International Business Machines Corporation)
(4) No. 7,945,929 (“the ’929 patent”，原專利權人：United Video Properties, Inc.)
(5) No. 7,974,962 (“the ’962 patent”，原專利權人：Aptiv Digital, Inc.)
案件討論：
Netflix在此確認之訴中，提出簡易判決（Summary Judgment）請求，在此簡易判決請求中，提出系爭專利不符35 U.S.C. 101可專利性的規定，也就是認為系爭專利為沒有技術特徵的抽象概念。
在是否符合35 U.S.C. 101的審查中，引用多件過去幾年最高法院經典判例，如：
- 確認自然律、自然現象、抽象概念等技術為非可專利標的（Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)）
- 只要產生有用、實際的結果（“useful, concrete, and tangible result”），流程方法為可專利標的（State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998).）
- 流程可專利，只要連結特定機器或裝置，或轉換到特定狀態或物體的技術（machine-or-transformation test）（In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008).）
- 討論技術本身是否為自然律或抽象概念，即便是新發現的自然律，仍不可專利（Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.）
- 先判斷發明涉及是否為自然律等抽象概念、技術是否實質超越（"significantly more"）不適格的概念（two-step test）（Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International）
另還涉及其他應用以上判例的CAFC案例，如：Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/101-ultramercial-v-hulu-fed-cir-2014.html），以及DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）。
101討論：
顯然，Alice判例成為主要討論的可專利性議題，也就是將TWO-STEP TEST應用在各系爭專利專利範圍的可專利性測試，如'929專利claim 11：
11. A system for locating programs of interest to a user, the system comprising:
a receiver that receives a plurality of program listings, wherein at least one of the program listings is associated with two or more simple categories; and
a processor that generates at least one combination category by:
'929專利claim 11界定提供有興趣節目給使用者的系統，經接收節目清單後，處理器識別其中類別，並結合已識別的類別到節目表中。對此，Netflix宣稱其中結合類別的技術為抽象概念，Rovi主張這部分結合類別的技術並未見於先前技術中，對於是否抽象概念並未著墨。Rovi的答覆顯然並未針對101議題，即便此技術為新穎的技術。
identifying the two or more simple categories associated with the at least one program listing; and
combining at least a subset of the identified simple categories associated with the at least one program listing into the at least one combination category, wherein the combination category comprises more than one of the identified simple categories.
法院意見：
"The ’929 patent may well disclose an idea that was unconventional at the time of the patent’s filing. However, an unconventional abstract idea is still an unpatentable abstract idea. Rovi must do more than merely show an unconventional idea, it must show an unconventional embodiment of that idea."
對於'962專利claim 1，提供使用者可選擇特別類別的電子節目表的技術：
1. A method for searching for shows comprising:
providing a search engine application;
receiving one or more characters in said search engine application, wherein said one or more characters are entered in an alpha-numeric input area;
matching said characters using said search engine application to one or more database entries;
providing results corresponding to said database entries in a results listing, wherein said results comprise one or more show listings and one or more selectable categories of shows;
receiving a user selection from said results listing of one of said selectable categories;
providing at least one additional show listing corresponding to said selected selectable category in response to the user selection of said selected selectable category; and
enabling a user to perform an action by selecting one of said at least one additional show listings.
此部分爭論在是否重新組織節目表資料為「轉換」到新的可專利事物，對此，法院認為'962的技術對原事物並未產生改變，並沒有transformation（這也非Alice測試的要件），為非可專利標的。針對'762專利，其界定為server-client架構下產生的電子節目表，claim 1界定使用client-server互動電視節目表來追蹤使用者觀看歷史，並以此得到符合的電子節目表的技術。
1. A method for use in a client-server interactive television program guide system for tracking a user's viewing history, comprising:
tracking a user's viewing history;
storing the user's viewing history on a program guide server;
finding programs with the program guide server that are consistent with the user's viewing history;
determining, with the program guide server, whether the programs found by the program guide server were not previously viewed on user television equipment; and
displaying, with a program guide client implemented on the user television equipment, a display of program titles, wherein the display:
本案在最初ITC訴訟中被認為非抽象概念的技術，但是當時是在Alice判例出來前，如今需要通過TWO-STEP測試。法院認為，人類心智可以區隔何為看過（watched），以及何謂沒看過（unwatched）的節目，以及作出根據觀看歷史記錄的建議，並認為其中硬體並未足夠達到101對於抽象概念限制的門檻。
includes the programs found by the program guide server, wherein some of the programs have been previously viewed on the user television equipment and some of the programs have not been previously viewed on the user television equipment; and
visually distinguishes the programs determined by the program guide server to have been previously viewed from the programs that have not been previously viewed.
對於'709專利claim 13，
13. A method for use in an interactive program guide system for providing a customized viewing experience to a user, comprising:
generating a viewing history database comprising program listings and associated program criteria;
determining at least one of the associated program criteria from the viewing history database that meets a user preference profile;
determining from a program listing database a set of programs not yet watched;
applying the at least one of the associated program criteria to the set of programs not yet watched to generate at least one personal viewing recommendation; and
providing the personal viewing recommendation to a user.
法院認為請求項範圍並未揭露其中personal viewing recommendation如何產生，其中方法流程並未有技術性，no inventive concept在其中，不符101規定。對於'906案，claim 1如下，其中產生的書籤（bookmark）讓使用者操作觀看節目，即便換了裝置，仍可取得使用者設定的書籤。
1. A method for providing configurable access to media in a media-on-demand system comprising the steps of:
delivering the media to a first client device through a first communications link, wherein the media is configured in a format compatible with identified device properties of said first client device and said first client device is associated with a first user;
recording a bookmark specifying a position in the media; and
delivering the media to a second client device through a second communications link, said delivery to said second client device beginning at said position specified by said recorded bookmark, wherein the media is configured in a format compatible with identified device properties of said second client device and said second client device also is associated with said first user.
其中雖界定了幾個裝置，如first client device、second client device，都為一般目的的電腦（"general purpose computer"），並非特定機器（"particular machine"），即便Rovi找來專家證人證明請求項中所使用的通訊連線並非一般或習知的組合，宣稱此組合使得隨選媒體伺服器執行特定功能來傳遞多媒體到各種裝置上，但法院認為這些宣稱的內容並沒有證明與一般多裝置之間的書籤技術有何差異，其中沒有新穎的技術，剩餘技術沒有技術特徵。以上每一件系爭專利都被認為不符35U.S.C.101規定。
my two cents:
這件有點兵敗如山倒的感覺，將幾件專利放在一個訴訟中實在不見得是好事，一旦有專利無效，法官的心態上可能已有偏向，其他專利可能也會被影響。
答辯時，應該要切題，如果顧左右而言他，很容易被抓到，就產生不利的判決，本案例有這個現象。
從專利是否符合35U.S.C.101，有些其實是很明確（或說經過引導）從claim看出是否為人為操作，或是一般目的電腦的工作，有些卻可能需要有一些論述，因此，如同OA答辯，論述是否符合101是很重要的。
軟體專利要符合可專利性（35USC101）的規定，可能要更為嚴格地來揭示專利，以及規劃專利範圍，將有意義的硬體加入是不二法則，否則將可能碰觸許多講也講不清楚的101爭論。
即便有Alice判例，但是Bilski的machine-or-transformation的測試看來仍是十分重要的論點。
確認之訴判決文：
https://app.box.com/s/kxw5slzjnk66gf9yygypo7ur502ba7vl（備份）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言