案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：Mortgage Grader, Inc.
被告/被上訴人：First Choice Loan Services Inc., NYLX, Inc.
系爭專利：US7,366,694、US7,680,728
判決日：January 20, 2015
本案緣起原告Mortgage對First Choice Loan Services等被告提出的侵權告訴，被告提出專利不適格（35 U.S.C. § 101）的請願，地院同意，原告Mortgage提出上訴。
系爭專利US7,366,694關於借貸信用的管理，為一種輔助借貸者得到貸款的方法與系統，簡單來說，通過所提出的電腦系統根據個人資訊（信用）分析容易取得借貸的方案。
Claim 1即描述一個電腦實現讓借貸者可以匿名取得借方的借貸方案的系統，系統包括資料庫，其中紀錄借方的各種方案，系統包括一電腦系統，其中包括讓介方上傳方案的介面，以及讓貸方輸入個人資訊與需求的介面，並能評估個人信用分數，最後比對出適合貸方的借貸方案。
1. A computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, the system comprising:
a database that stores loan package data specifying loan packages for home loans offered by the lenders, the loan package data specifying, for each of the loan packages, at least a loan type, an interest rate, and a required borrower credit grading; and
a computer system that provides:
a first interface that allows the lenders to securely upload at least some of the loan package data for their respective loan packages to the database over a computer network; and
a second interface that prompts a borrower to enter personal loan evaluation information, and invokes, on a computer, a borrower grading module which uses at least the entered personal loan evaluation information to calculate a credit grading for the borrower, said credit grading being distinct from a credit score of the borrower, and being based on underwriting criteria used by at least some of said lenders;
wherein the second interface provides functionality for the borrower to search the database to identify a set of loan packages for which the borrower qualifies based on the credit grading, and to compare the loan packages within the set, including loan type and interest rate, while remaining anonymous to each of the lenders and without having to post a request to any of the lenders, said second interface configured to display to the borrower an indication of a total cost of each loan package in the set, said total cost including costs of closing services not provided by corresponding lenders;
and wherein the computer-implemented system further enables the borrower to selectively expose at least the personal loan evaluation information to a lender corresponding to a selected loan package.
系爭專利權人原本於2013年向Costco提告，之後加入本次被告First Choice Loan Services Inc., NYLX, Inc.，不料加入的被告提出反制，提出專利不適格的請願意見。
（本案有段故事涉及S.P.R. (Standing Patent Rules)，用於降低重複的司法程序，避免雙方在訴訟過程提出修正而不當延長訴訟時程，訴訟過程中提出修正需要正當理由（good cause）。這類議題有興趣者可參考判決文。）
"The S.P.R.s are intended “to reduce transaction costs and increase procedural predictability,” while also being as “outcome neutral and as concise as possible.”"
要訴求S.P.R.，對抗侵權告訴的方式必須是「專利無效」主張。
"Pertinent to this appeal is the S.P.R.s’ requirement that a party opposing a claim of patent infringement must serve invalidity contentions."
本案中，在地方法院提出專利範圍解釋命令後，被告First Choice對系爭專利即時提起無效主張，在S.P.R.規則下，就是從初始無效主張（initial invalidity contentions）修改為最終無效主張（final invalidity contentions），其中主張即涉及基於Alice v. CLS案的35 U.S.C. § 101議題。
不過，原告就攻這點，也提出主張，主張被告沒有「正當理由」在放棄其「初始無效主張」時還加入答辯（有修改），被告主張當年（2014年）最高法院作出Alice判例，這就是正當理由。
地院這時審理被告提出的簡易判決請願，採用TWO-STEP測試，認為系爭專利為抽象概念，也不具備可以轉換抽象概念為可專利標的的進步特徵（inventive concept）。
CAFC階段：
案件經原告上訴後，CAFC主要審理的議題是(1)地院在同意被告修改101無效主張上是否有濫用職權，(2)地院決定是依據錯誤的法律，(3)地院的調查是錯的，以及(4)沒有證據支持地院結論。
CAFC法官在審理被告在S.P.R.規則下修改了主張，但其「正當理由（good cause）」就是當年有Alice判例出爐，形成新的101審理規則，使得原告修改其主張具有正當理由，而地院並未濫權。
在Alice案中，相對於之前符合專利適格性的「particular machine」的要求，最高法院確立「僅使用一般目的電腦不能轉變抽象概念為可專利的發明」（"merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."），這個結論也讓CAFC對許多後續案件作出一致的101判斷標準。（"Our conclusion was expressly based on Alice’s holding that “adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible.”"）
對於本案，依據以上原則，可知系爭專利範圍使用電腦系統或電腦網路實現匿名借貸的發明並不具備可專利性。
為了審理地院是否錯誤使用法律，或說是否錯誤使用因為Alice判例而改變的101判斷規則，CAFC重申整套依據Alice/Mayo判例而形成的TWO-STEP測試。
系爭專利範圍不符35 U.S.C. § 101理由：
1. CAFC同意地院的判斷，系爭專利發明屬於抽象概念，甚至是可以不用電腦的人類相互借貸處理的發明，係爭專利範圍中僅加入一般電腦元件（介面、網路、資料庫），並沒有「inventive concept」。
2. 系爭專利不屬於電腦技術，沒有改善電腦本身的功能。（DDR也救不了）
3. 系爭專利沒有連結特定機器或裝置（"the claims are not adequately tied to “a particular machine or apparatus.”"）。
summary judgment motion：
CAFC同意地院同意被告提起的簡易判決請願（summary judgment motion），這裡就順便討論到什麼是summary judgment motion？
簡易判決僅適用沒有重大事實問題（“Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”）
單方面的爭議不能改變恰當的簡易判決（“mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.”）。
如果宣稱的重大事實爭議是對的，而證據顯示陪審團應作出決定，簡易判決即不適用（“summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”）
35 U.S.C. § 101議題雖有「事實」的成分，不完全是法律問題，不過，在簡易判決中解決仍是適當的！ 判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/l2gxan83pwzxv8xevoxbj14bspl1chce）
my two cents:
本案系爭專利確實是個很純粹的「一般電腦實現商業方法」的發明，這在現在的氣氛確實是個「很不能專利」的標的，因此，像Costco這種大公司，算是典型被告，可能有許多考量，而沒有選擇回應與反制（判決書未提），本案最後落到不符專利適格性的結論仍有利於原本被告。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言