SAP America v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018)案告訴我們，即便發明夠創新，符合102, 103，仍可能逃不過101的檢驗。特別的是，判決中，法院用正反兩面（正為不可專利性、反為可專利性）來支持其不符專利適格性的判決。
案件資訊：
原告/被上訴人：SAP AMERICA, INC.
被告/上訴人：INVESTPIC, LLC
系爭專利：US6,349,291
判決日：May 15, 2018
系爭專利'291的claim 1關於針對投資資訊的重採樣統計法（resampled statistical method）分析、顯示與傳播的方法，典型的商業與軟體方法，請求項1界定一計算、分析與顯示投資資訊的方法，首先選擇有關投資的採樣空間，再以重採樣統計方法與偏差參數產生分布資料，之後顯示一圖表。系統項claim 22界定的系統包括有財務資料庫、客戶資料庫與收集資料與處理資料的處理器。
1. A method for calculating, analyzing and displaying investment data comprising the steps of:
(a) selecting a sample space, wherein the sample space includes at least one investment data sample;
(b) generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter, wherein the bias parameter determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process; and,
(c) generating a plot of the distribution function.
22. A system for providing statistical analysis of investment information over an information network comprising:
a financial data database for storing investment data;
a client database;
a plurality of processors collectively arranged to perform a parallel processing computation, wherein the plurality of processors is adapted to:
receive a statistical analysis request corresponding to a selected investment;
based upon investment data pertaining to the selected investment, perform a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution; and,
provide a report of the resampled distribution.
系爭專利滿身傷痕，曾歷經至少兩次再審（reexamination），面對102, 103挑戰都存活下來，但這次的挑戰是面對35 U.S.C. § 101，由本次侵權被告SAP在訴訟中提出不符101的無效簡易判決（declaratory judgment），地院判定系爭專利全數專利範圍不符35 U.S.C. § 101可專利性規定。
要駁回這類專利相對102, 103判斷更為簡單，就看是否僅是數學或是商業的步驟而已，法院也是這樣，認為系爭專利僅是一般電腦硬體、使用網路，解決人類活動的數學計算。
然而，就法院的觀點，即便表面上明顯"不符專利適格性"，還是需要足夠的證據與論述，盡量避免似是而非的觀點。
關於本次主要議題，35 U.S.C. § 101的適格性判斷自然參考了：
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank.html）：
(1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination,’” do not add enough to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/10/mayo-collaborative-services-v.html）：
The first stage of the Alice inquiry looks at the “focus” of the claims, their “‘character as a whole’”; and the second stage of the inquiry (where reached) looks more precisely at what the claim elements add— specifically, whether, in the Supreme Court’s terms, they identify an “‘inventive concept’” in the application of the ineligible matter to which (by assumption at stage two) the claim is directed.
關於系爭專利為一種資訊收集的技術，這涉及：
- Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (CAFC 2016)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/08/electric-power-group-llc-v-alstom-sa.html）：
“Information as such is an intangible,” hence abstract, and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), is within the realm of abstract ideas.”
關於系爭專利為資訊表示、資訊分析而沒有超出抽象概念的判斷，如案例：
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)（相關報導如：https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/07/appeal-2010-009107.html）
And “merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”
法院也"反面表示"，就是將可能超越抽象概念的案例來講，但系爭專利仍不符這些案例所稱可專利的條件，例如：
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/09/mcro-v-bandai-namco-et-al-fed-cir-2016.html）：
The claims in McRO were directed to the creation of something physical—namely, the display of “lip synchronization and facial expressions” of animated characters on screens for
viewing by human eyes.
- Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/08/cfc.html）：
the improvement was in a physical tracking system. The use of mathematics to achieve an improvement no more changed the conclusion that improved physical things and actions were the subject of the claimed advance than it did in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
- OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)
“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.”
法院用上述等正反兩面的案例來支持其結論，認為系爭專利關於投資資訊的收集，即便有分析而限定在特定的內容，或是有特定來源，但顯然所採用的投資資訊本身是抽象的，但所涉及的基礎經濟活動仍是不可專利的標的。
專利權人在答辯中也提出對自己有利的前例，但前例總有改善電腦、網路等技術的關聯性，且說明書支持這些技術性的特徵，系爭專利沒有這樣的特點。
當參考以上各種證據，判定系爭專利為抽象概念時，進入TWO-STEP分析的step 2B，查驗是否系爭專利發明中具有可以轉換抽象概念為可專利的標的的額外元件或組合，能產生inventive concept，並表示，當這類技術僅是電腦或網路的創新，仍不足以建立"inventive concept"，因此持平認為，如系爭專利的創新僅用在一般電腦上的數學演算，本身不會超越公知、常規與習知。
因此結論是，系爭專利發明沒有超越抽象概念。
如此也暗示，如果如系爭專利的技術，涉及到電腦等工具的技術改善，而非僅使用一般目的的電腦的方法，仍可能具備專利適格性。
CAFC判決：即便系爭專利夠創新而出色，但卻不符35 U.S.C. § 101規定。
備註：法院倚賴現行法律、判例與檢驗的原則下，判定系爭專利不符專利適格性，法官建議發明人對於這類發明可以尋求「營業秘密」保護。
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2081.Opinion.5-14-2018.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/n8v3v8ekvbcvuuzw9or2lav6oqesnipo）
Ron
