本案例中，法官引用多個前例支持作出「串流技術中編解碼技術不符專利適格性」的結論， 這會使得著重在編解碼技術的專利都被認定是「抽象概念」且沒有可以轉換為可專利的「進步特徵」，這對很多發明人來說，是值得注意的情況！
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：ADAPTIVE STREAMING INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人：NETFLIX, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
判決日：December 14, 2020
系爭專利：US7,047,305
系爭專利'305關於利用廣域網路的個人廣報系統（編按，看起來如podcast、youtube等），這個系統自來源裝置即時傳送影像資訊到多個終端，這些終端自來源裝置經網路閘道接收串流封包，特別是過程中能根據終端支援的格式轉換為多種格式，再由終端顯示內容。
本案例涉及35U.S.C.101議題，系爭專利Claim 1如下，系統包括有「至少一影像擷取裝置」，以取得影像資訊，將影像封包化為特定格式的串流信息，再傳送出去；包括有「網路閘道」，過程中壓縮並輸出；包括「至少一顯示裝置」，用以接收影像以顯示出來。Claim 39則是比較概括地包括處理器、廣播伺服器，其中有影像取得、資料夾夠與轉碼模組。
1. A system for transferring real time video information from a source device to one of a plurality of output devices, the system comprising:
at least one image capturing device to acquire video information, the image capturing device including a processor, a graphics module coupled to the processor, a browsing device coupled to the processor, a packetizing portion coupled to the processor, the packetizing portion being adapted to convert the video information into a single packetized stream of video information, the single packetized stream of video information being in a first format, and an output device coupled to the processor to transfer the single packetized stream of video information to a network;
a network gateway coupled to the image capturing device through the network, the network gateway being coupled to a worldwide network of computers, the network gateway including a gateway transcoding device to transcode the single packetized stream of video information from the first format into multiple compressed output streams of video information having different second compression formats, the network gateway also including a packetizing portion to transfer the compressed output streams of video information in the second compression formats to the network; and
at least one display device coupled to the network gateway through the world wide network of computers to convert one of the compressed output streams of video information that it receives into video information for display, the display device having a display for displaying the video information on the display device;
wherein the first format is selected from compressed and uncompressed audiovideo formats; and
wherein the network gateway can provide the multiple compressed output streams of video information, having the different second compression formats and which were transcoded from the single packetized stream of video information having the first format, with unique sets of audiovisual characteristics, from which at least one compressed output stream can be selected to be displayed on the display.
39. A system to broadcast to at least one client device, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a broadcasting server coupled to the processor, the broadcasting server including:
an image retrieval portion to retrieve at least one incoming video signal having a first format;
a data structure usable to determine parameters for second compression formats for the at least one incoming video signal; and
at least one transcoding module coupled to the image retrieval portion and which has access to the data structure, the transcoding module being capable to transcode the at least one incoming video signal from the first format into multiple compressed output video signals having respective second compression formats based at least in part on the parameters;
wherein at least one of the second compression formats is more suitable for the at least one client device than the first format; and
wherein the multiple compressed output video signals having the at least one second compression format more suitable for the at least one client device can be provided by the broadcasting server, wherein any one of the multiple compressed output video signals can be selected to be presented at the at least one client device.
40. The system of claim 39 wherein the at least one client device can select which of the compressed output video signals to present and may access the selected compressed video signals from multiple devices, including access of compressed output video signals having different second compression formats from different devices.
42. The system of claim 39 wherein a different compressed output video signal can be dynamically selected to be presented at the at least one client device, instead of a current compressed output video signal, in response to a change in a bandwidth condition.
本案緣起Adaptive向Netflix, Inc.提出侵權告訴，而地院判決系爭專利不符35 U.S.C. § 101，案件上訴到CAFC。
CAFC階段：
專利權人Adaptive主張系爭專利包括了可專利的進步特徵/發明概念（inventive concept，符合101的主要技術特徵）。
CAFC就事實來審理101議題，基於Alice v. CLS Bank案例形成的TWO-STEP專利適格性檢驗規則（編按，每次法官的講法多少都有些差異，但精神不變！包括我自己論述101的"套路"都會有所不同，就常常看相關案例"練習"這方面論述。）
根據以上規則，首先，CAFC法官判定系爭專「資料收集、轉碼為多種格式」屬於抽象概念；接著解釋專利範圍時，判決文特別提到系爭專利範圍的用語「at least one client device」，這句話表示可以傳送到「一個裝置」，而專利範圍中的「broadcast」表示是可以傳送到多個裝置。
這時引用案例「Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019)」，以及此案例判決中所引用的案例「Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016))」，也就是，法官在審理101時，考量了專利技術特徵是否屬於已知、常規與習知的技術。
在本次審理中，法官認為系爭專利的專利範圍說明書清楚地涉及「轉換格式以提供不同終端裝置影像數據」的技術，若對照前例「Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016))」，簡直是相同概念下的發明，使得法官認為系爭專利在編碼或其他技術上並沒有特別的地方。
CAFC意見是，系爭專利中編解碼與格式轉換屬於基本通訊實務上一般思想，並沒有特定進步的特徵，屬於抽象概念。（其中引用前例都很精彩）
----------------------------
其中案例摘錄：發明是否有實質超越的技術需要更明確的判斷 - Affinity Labs v. DirecTV (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/affinity-labs-v-directv-fed-cir-2016.html）：
"系爭專利的特徵之一是透過網路傳遞串流內容，但太多這樣的專利，顯得這樣的特徵就是一般的環境（generic environment），綜合來看，功能為一般、環境為一般，相關應用並不足以克服101的問題（well-known, routine, and conventional functions" did not transform the abstract idea into a patentable invention），使得系爭專利範圍被判為沒有實質超越的不可專利的抽象概念。"
INVENTIVE CONCEPT的意思不是新穎與進步性 - Two-Way Media v. Comcast (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/11/inventive-concept-two-way-media-v.html）
關於編解碼的可專利性專利適格性 （updated on Aug. 3, 2023） - Recognicorp v. Nintendo (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/recognicorp-v-nintendo-fed-cir-2017.html）
"CAFC法官認為，如果專利權人可以如Bascom案中專利權人一般地以自身利益來論述，證明專利不是僅使用一般目的電腦達到一般目的而已，有機會，反倒告訴本案系爭專利專利權人RecogniCorp，他們並未如此論述"
Twitter傳訊服務的專利侵權爭議與101 - EasyWeb v. Twitter (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/twitter101-easyweb-v-twitter-fed-cir.html）
"在CAFC法官判斷中，認為系爭專利僅引述了一些常見概念，包括接收、認證與訊息發布等步驟，且是應用了一般目的電腦（generic computer）執行資料收集、分析與發布，沒有足以轉換不可專利範圍為可專利的進步概念，沒有改善電腦技術（TLI案例）。"
----------------------------
下一個步驟（step two）是檢驗系爭專利是否具備可以轉換抽象概念為可專利標的的任何實質超越抽象概念的進步特徵，這時，法官如前例一般，認定本案採用的為一般目的電腦。也就表示，系爭專利中有關編解碼、格式轉換等技術不容易說服法官不是使用一般目的電腦、網路的技術。
本案CAFC法官再次強調：滿足新穎性、非顯而意見性（102, 103，本案系爭專利獲准的理由）並非意味（imply）具有專利適格性（101），也就是，即便發明具有新穎性、非顯而意見性（進步性），仍可能是抽象的！
"We have explained that satisfying the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness does not imply eligibility under § 101, including under the second step of the Alice inquiry, because what may be novel and non-obvious may still be abstract."
CAFC同意地院判決，系爭專利不可專利（101）。
my two cents:
涉及編碼、解碼、格式轉換的發明，不容易獲准專利，原因是不容易排除本身是利用一般目的電腦的技術，但可以改善的是，要進一步指出其具體的應用，如所運用的電視、電腦、網路系統、硬體特徵，避免被直指為抽象概念而不容易獲准專利。
然而，即便如本篇標題「眾多前例指出：編解碼技術不符專利適格性」，但案例會更新，規則也會改變，除了應該要考量以上提到的基本要件外，對發明與專利系統有信心的話，應該還是可以繼續嘗試。
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1310.OPINION.12-14-2020_1700914.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/j51zc1op45uvz2zqqrmac5vu5lcv2obi）
資料參考：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言