案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：SECURED MAIL SOLUTIONS LLC
被告/被上訴人：UNIVERSAL WILDE, INC.
系爭專利：US7,814,032, US7,818,268, US8,073,787（“Intelligent Mail Barcode”）、US8,260,629, US8,429,093（“QR Code”）、US8,910,860, US9,105,002（“Personalized URL”）
判決日：October 16, 2017
本案緣起美國地院同意侵權被告提起系爭專利不符35 U.S.C. § 101專利適格性規定的請願（理由："asserted patents are directed to an abstract idea and the claims contain no additional elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea"），侵權原告Secured Mail Solutions LLC對此提起上訴。
系爭專利與原其專利權人的公司名稱"secured mail solutions"一致，都是有關郵件資安的技術，如'032為一種驗證郵件的方法，方法包括寄件者先產生唯一識別符，將此識別符、信件資料與收件者資料編碼形成一條碼，儲存在資料庫並印出條碼，成為一個實體的郵件，遞交給收信者後，以掃描器掃描條碼，得出編碼的資料，可以根據資料庫數據驗證寄件者身份。
1. A method for using a single barcode to verify the authenticity of and identify a sender of a physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to a recipient via a mail carrier, comprising:
a sender of a physical mail object generating a unique identifier, wherein said unique identifier comprises a numeric value, can be used by said sender to identify said physical mail object, and is distinguishable from a second unique identifier that can be used by said sender to identify a second physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to said recipient via said mail carrier;
encoding at least said unique identifier, sender data and recipient data into a single barcode, wherein said sender data identifies said sender of said physical mail object and said recipient data identifies a recipient of said physical mail object;
storing at least a portion of said encoded data in a database, said portion comprising at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data;
printing said single barcode on said physical mail object;
submitting said physical mail object to a postal carrier;
scanning by a scanner said single barcode to acquire said encoded data; and
comparing by a computer at least a portion of said encoded data to data stored in said database to verify the authenticity of said physical mail object, wherein said at least a portion of said encoded data comprises at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data and can be used by said postal carrier to identify said sender of said physical mail object.
延續'032內容，'629案為以實體郵件遞交數位資料給收件者的方法，方法包括在實體郵件黏貼經過編碼寄件者、內容與收件者資料形成的條碼，相關的數位內容儲存在資料庫，接著是遞送實體郵件給收件者，掃描條碼後可得信件內容（第一部分），經網路傳送此載有第一部分信件內容的資料到一郵件裝置，以提供收件者完整的信件內容。
1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a physical mail object, said electronic data corresponding to a content of said physical mail object, comprising:
affixing a single barcode to an outer surface of said physical mail object, said single barcode including at least a first set of mail data, said first set of mail data including recipient data, said recipient data corresponding to said recipient of said physical mail object;
storing said electronic data in at least one database;
delivering said physical mail object to said recipient via a mail carrier;
using a reception device to scan said single barcode to retrieve said first set of mail data;
sending by said reception device said first set of mail data to a mail device via a network;
receiving by said mail device said first set of mail data;
providing by said mail device said electronic data to said reception device via said network, wherein said electronic data is retrieved from said at least one database and provided to said reception device in response to receiving said first set of mail data, including said recipient data;
receiving by said reception device said electronic data, said reception device including a display; and
providing by said reception device said electronic data to said recipient of said physical mail object by displaying said electronic data on said display via a web browser;
wherein said electronic data corresponds to data that is included inside said physical mail object.
延續'032內容，'860案關於提供實體收件者資訊的方法，在實體郵件上附加收件者資料，收件者資料包括一個個人化網路位址（URL），並遞送至收件者，收件者可以根據個人化網路位址接收到資料，並顯示出郵件內容。
1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:
using an output device to affix a single set of mail ID data to said mail object, said single set of mail ID data including at least recipient data, said recipient data comprising a personalized network address associated with said recipient of said mail object;
submitting said mail object to a mail carrier for delivery to said recipient of said mail object;
receiving said recipient data from a reception device of said recipient via a network; and
providing by at least one processor said electronic data to said reception device via said network in response to receiving said recipient data, said electronic data including data on a content of said mail object;
wherein said reception device displays said electronic data to a recipient of said mail object by displaying said electronic data on a screen of said reception device.
根據以上系爭專利的簡介，可知，系爭專利都是有關通過實體郵件傳送數位內容的技術，包括網路認證與利用資料庫的技術，關鍵技術包括條碼、URL的形成、資料庫儲存，以及寄送與收件者的裝置（如個人電腦）等。
不過，這樣實體加上網路技術形成的安全郵遞的技術面對不符35 U.S.C. § 101專利適格性規定的挑戰，在地方法院階段，地院判決系爭專利並未有意義地限制郵件加上標記的抽象概念（“the asserted claims, viewed individually or in combination, do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of communicating information about a mailpiece by use of marking.”），編按，就是沒有可以轉換郵件加上identifier等抽象概念成為具有應用的額外元件。
CAFC階段：
法院制式地使用基於Alice/Mayo判例形成的TWO-STEP專利適格性測試，通過step 1後，在step 2A測試下，認定系爭專利發明為抽象概念。
其中專利權人引用對「改善電腦技術」為可專利的Enfish案例，但法院認為Enfish案關於利用電腦技術組織資料產生索引的技術，而本案系爭專利並非為相關改善電腦功能的技術，這裡特別提到本案沒有涉及「新條碼格式」、不是「掃描或產生條碼的改善方案」，也不是電腦功能的改善。（編按，反之，如果是這類「新/改善」方案，則為可專利標的）
即便專利權人反駁而認為系爭專利改善了既有的郵件遞送方法，但法院認為系爭專利可能讓遞送郵件的流程更有效率，但並沒有讓抽象概念更不抽象。特別的是，相關郵件條碼沒有特別細節或執行設備，而僅揭示一般將資料編碼成郵件的技術，法院認為，其中附加識別資料、資料庫與郵件掃描等技術，無關電腦、資料庫、印表機或掃描機的規則與細節，這裡引用兩個案例：McRO、Thales，認為系爭專利不是規則的組合而可讓資訊成為特定格式而產生特定結果，也不是的對感測器設定而產生使用其資料的特定方法，看來，系爭專利沒有與一般郵件技術不同的足夠細節，使得無法超越抽象概念的判斷。
法官在此檢驗步驟中有了明確的說法：（編按，若系爭專利提出特定規則與建立條碼、URL的步驟，可能扭轉被認定抽象概念的判斷）
接著在step 2B中檢驗系爭專利範圍是否包括了足以轉換抽象概念為可專利應用的進步特徵/發明概念（inventive concept，"whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application"）？
關於專利範圍是否具備「inventive concept」，有些明確的判斷原則，(1)「inventive concept」為專利範圍是否可以實質超越抽象概念本身的要件；(2)專利範圍需要證明具備inventive concept；(3)若僅是引述一般目的電腦（memory, processor, database等）或僅描述用在電腦，無法轉換抽象概念為可專利發明。
經審視系爭專利範圍後，CAFC認為，這些專利範圍描述了常規步驟，專利範圍的文字沒有解釋如何產生條碼、URL，而僅提到是新的、唯一的，使得無法跳脫常規步驟的判斷。
最後結論：系爭專利為abstract idea，也沒有inventive concept。
"We see no inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea."
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1728.Opinion.10-12-2017.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/nwoj95d5pk29z95jeoemgb5uoud06q9z）
my two cents:
系爭專利其實是個實用的技術，但卻輸在「細節不夠」而不足以認定具有「inventive concept」。
從本篇來看，用法官的講法，如果系爭專利有足夠的細節、提供特別的規則，而提供新條碼格式、掃描或產生條碼的改善方案，就有可能判斷為電腦功能的改善，即可為可專利標的。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言