案件資訊：
上訴人/被上訴人：IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC
交叉上訴人/上訴人/專利權人：TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
（在部分上訴案中這兩位的角色互換）
參加人：UNITED STATES
系爭專利：US6,766,304, US6,772,132, US7,676,411, US7,813,996（CBM2015-00161, CBM2016-00035, CBM2015-00182, CBM2015-00181, CBM2016-00031）
判決日：February 13, 2019
本案緣起IBM對Trading Technologies的幾件專利提出CBM異議程序（CBM2015-00161, CBM2016-00035, CBM2015-00182, CBM2015-00181, CBM2016-00031），經PTAB合併審理並作出決定後，雙方都上訴CAFC。
系爭專利US6,766,304, US6,772,132, US7,676,411, US7,813,996為同一家族的的專利，都是有關交易系統的圖形使用者介面（GUI）的技術，用於顯示在市場交易商品的市場深度（market depth），可以動態與靜態顯示交易價格。
列舉US6,766,304技術內容，這是提供交易者交易狀態的技術，具有省時而快速決策的效果。
'304案Claim 1界定一個顯示有關商品交易市場資訊的顯示方法，利用GUI顯示市場中最高與最低價格，有利於交易者快速得到資訊與快速交易。方法包括，動態顯示商品在不同地區的價格指標，利用表格座標顯示交易價格水平，能根據地區選擇而提供交易相關資訊。
1. A method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in a bid display region, each location in the bid display region corresponding to a price level along a common static price axis, the first indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently available in the market;
dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display region corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis, the second indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price currently available in the market;
displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed price levels positioned along the common static price axis such that when the inside market changes, the price levels along the common static price axis do not move and at least one of the first and second indicators moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the common static price axis;
displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis; and
in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange.
當IBM對系爭專利提起CBM異議程序，也就是對系爭專利提起不符35 U.S.C. § 101.的無效主張，這裡列舉CBM2016-00035，在TWO-STEP測試中，PTAB認為'304不屬於抽象概念，並非不可專利標的。
列舉CBM2016-00031，PTAB認為'996為抽象概念，並繼續專利範圍中技術元件的個別或其組合是否具有轉換抽象概念為可專利應用的額外元件？
PTAB認為「沒有」額外元件，理由在當中，主要是專利沒有揭示如何使用GUI實現其中功能。
PTAB最終決定：'304與'132符合專利適格性；'411與'996為不可專利標的。
CAFC階段：
CAFC也乾脆，對這四件CBM，CAFC法官認為系爭專利揭示的GUI是技術發明（technological invention），不是CBM異議程序議題。
主要問題是，AIA制度下的CBM異議程序是針對執行資料處理、管理商業產品或服務的方法與對應裝置的專利，而不是針對技術發明的專利。
"A CBM patent is “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include pa-tents for technological inventions.”"
本部落格有一些參考報導：
- CBM應該只是針對商業方法專利 - Unwired Planet v. Google (Fed. Cir. 2016)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/11/cbm-unwired-planet-v-google-fed-cir-2016.html）
- CBM僅適用商業方法的專利範圍 - Apple and Google v. ContentGuard v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/08/cbm-apple-and-google-v-contentguard-v.html）
如此，使得本案的議題轉向「GUI是否是技術發明」？
37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)要求PTAB逐案考量專利是否為技術發明，相對先前技術，專利範圍中是否為新穎且非顯而易知，並且是否使用技術手段解決技術問題。
這裡引述相關案例，如CQG，可參考：股票交易使用者介面的可專利性討論 - Trading Technologies v. CQG (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/01/trading-technologies-v-cqg-fed-cir-2017.html），CAFC引用CQG案例，同意當時地方法院意見「使用者介面」並非抽象概念，因為其解決了習知技術UI的問題：
對本案來說，CAFC認為系爭專利提出的GUI改善交易系統的功能而以軟體實現這個技術手段，也就是說，系爭專利說明書描述出在大量市場交易數量中，並提出解決方案，如此可證系爭專利為技術問題，不是CBM要處理的議題。
結論，這些系爭專利不是CBM程序要處理的案件型態。
"A CBM patent is “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include pa-tents for technological inventions.”"
my two cents:
從本案以及過去案例顯示，CBM能夠處理的專利案範圍很小，就是
先筆記搜尋CBM2015-00161的流程：uspto.gov -> Patent Trial and Appeal Board -> Trials -> PTAB End to End -> https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1732.Opinion.2-13-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/erumxsra0un3c1414qq9g9ge5mlbdnq4）
參考資料：https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/02/interface-technological-business.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言