案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：FAIRWARNING IP, LLC
被告/被上訴人：IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC.
系爭專利：US8,578,500
判決日：October 11, 2016
本案緣起地方法院在審理侵權議題時，同意侵權被告提出的請願，作出系爭專利非專利適格（違反35 U.S.C. § 101）而撤銷訴訟的決定，專利權人上訴CAFC。
系爭專利US8,578,500關於一種電腦安全的技術，其中通過辨識出使用者不尋常存取敏感資料（病患資料）的行為來檢測是否有欺騙與濫用行為。Claim 1界定出偵測不適當存取病患健康資料的方法，方法包括產生一個審核記錄檔案的規則、應用規則在這些檔案上，以判斷是否有符合規則的事件，儲存並發出通知。
1. A method of detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information (PHI) in a computer environment, the method comprising:
generating a rule for monitoring audit log data representing at least one of transactions or activities that are executed in the computer environment, which are associated with the patient's PHI, the rule comprising at least one criterion related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, accesses by a specific user, that is indicative of improper access of the patient's PHI by an authorized user wherein the improper access is an indication of potential snooping or identity theft of the patient's PHI, the authorized user having a pre-defined role comprising authorized computer access to the patient's PHI;
applying the rule to the audit log data to determine if an event has occurred, the event occurring if the at least one criterion has been met;
storing, in a memory, a hit if the event has occurred; and
providing notification if the event has occurred.
表面上看來是個「資訊處理」的技術，確實要很小心處理（撰寫）這類專利。
CAFC審理案件時，標準動作是採用Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct.
2347 (2014)判例後衍生的TWO-STEP TEST，相關報導可參考：
最高法院對Alice v. CLS Bank案的判決：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-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
USPTO提出的審查標準：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/101-alice-corp-v-cls-bank.html
地院在此兩步驟測試中，先判斷系爭專利申請專利範圍為抽象概念，再於第二步驟判斷申請專利範圍無法轉換抽象概念為可專利的標的，也沒有可實質超越用在抽象概念上的一般目的的電腦指令。
在CAFC審理中，也是圍繞在101議題上，多半是我們常見於這類判決的意見，例如，關於是否發明概念可以實質超出抽象概念的議題，法官認為「inventive concept」應該是超過簡單引用「已知」、「常規」或「一般」的動作。
"This inventive concept must do more than simply recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298."
如此，CAFC法官認為，系爭專利為收集有關病患個人健康資料的資訊、根據一些規則分析取得的資訊，以判斷是否有不當存取，若有，則發出通知，這些僅在抽象概念的範疇中。
參考案例：
不能過份簡單地看待一個可專利性議題 - McRO v. Bandai Namco, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/mcro-v-bandai-namco-et-al-fed-cir-2016.html）
step one:
法官也持平處理本案，這裡引用案例 McRO，可能與本案類似， McRO是改善電腦動畫的技術，當中也是採用了一些數學規則，而當時法官認為，因為系爭專利改善了已知技術，不會因為專利僅是跑在電腦上的軟體而認為是抽象的技術。但是，舊規則在新環境是不會取得專利的，本案中，CAFC認為本案與McRO不同，本案是更像Alice案，即便專利權人爭辯說本案是電腦技術，並不是主張規則，CAFC法官仍認為本案僅是實現了既有偵測欺騙行為的技術。
"The claims here, in contrast, are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate, nor does FairWarning contend as much."
法官認為，通過人的智力，或是數學方程式處理分析資料並沒有超越抽象概念的範疇。就本案來看，系爭專利關於收集與分析資訊的抽象程序，並沒有產生超越抽象概念的特徵。
因此認為系爭專利，即便應用了電腦技術，但也僅是在新環境（取得病患資料）實現舊的技術。
"FairWarning’s claims merely implement an old practice in a new environment."
接著引用Enfish案，雖Enfish是的敗訴的案例，但是是因為有「先前技術」的問題，但對101判斷有幫助，不過，CAFC法官認為本案與Enfish不同，本案並非是改善電腦運作的技術，判斷是抽象概念。
step two:
這時又考量了系爭專利Claim 12，有關偵測不當存取病患資療資料的系統，提出有使用者介面，還有個微處理器。
12. A system for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information (PHI) in a health-care system computer environment, the system comprising:
a user interface for selection of at least one criterion related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, accesses by a specific user, representing at least one of transactions or activities associated with the patient's PHI that is indicative of improper access of the patient's PHI within the health-care system computer environment by an authorized user wherein the improper access is an indication of potential snooping or identity theft of the patient's PHI, the authorized user having a pre-defined role comprising authorized computer access to the patient's PHI, and for selection of a schedule for application of a rule for monitoring audit log data representing at least one of the transactions or the activities;
a microprocessor in communication with the user interface and having access to the audit log data representing the transactions or the activities of the patient's PHI, the microprocessor generating the rule based at least in part on the at least one criterion selected and applying the rule to the audit log data according to the schedule selected in order to determine if an event has occurred,
wherein the event occurs if the at least one criterion has been met,
wherein the microprocessor stores a hit if the event has occurred, and
wherein the microprocessor provides notification if the event has occurred.
但是，根據法官的描述，即便是有了user interface，還是沒有任何實質超越的技術讓此項範圍具有可專利性，因為使用者介面、微處理器這類一般目的電腦元件並不會轉換抽象概念為可專利標的。又有個引用前例DDR Holdings，這是一個電腦軟體可專利的法院判決，法官回應，僅是選擇資訊以收集、分析與通知，並沒有甚麼不同於一般智力程序，而能為排除抽象概念的例外。
" ... merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and [announcement] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”"
案例報導：
商業方法可專利性？電腦軟體專利的生機 - DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）
就法官的論點，系爭專利關於一個普通目的電腦的程序（"the claims require
that these processes be executed on a generic computer"）、引用一般目的電腦在請求項中也不會使不可專利轉變成可專利（"recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible"），以及經審查系爭專利範圍是否有任何"something more"？ 結論是沒有特徵的個別或組合可以讓發明變得可專利（"we conclude that there is nothing claimed in the patent—either by considering the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination—that makes its claims patent eligible."）。
參考案例：
Enfish案對軟體可專利性有貢獻卻不能克服前案的阻礙 - Microsoft v. Enfish (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/12/enfish-microsoft-v-enfish-fed-cir-2016.html）
（重要）關於我們實務上也可以以此答辯的理由：人的智力無法像電腦這樣去分析資料，法官回應如下，電腦可能讓這些計算更有效率，但是不會實質改變系爭專利的專利適格性。
"the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”
本案結論：
系爭專利為非可專利標的。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1985.Opinion.10-6-2016.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/5qnn1lgqfhucbkufkm9lyyvu7s11nurm）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言