本篇名稱為「硬體結構描述不足的專利適格性議題」，即便發明採用了特殊裝置，但是使用步驟仍屬於組織人類活動的範疇，申請專利範圍在硬體上也沒有"特別"的描述，使得這個鎖不夠特別，發明不具專利適格性。
案件資訊：
專利適格性議題：
原告/被上訴人：TRAVEL SENTRY, INC.
被告/上訴人：DAVID A. TROPP
系爭專利：US7,021,537、US7,036,728
判決時間：February 14, 2022
案件於地方法院在簡易判決中判定系爭專利不具專利適格性（35 U.S.C. § 101），代表'537 Claim 1如下：
1. A method of improving airline luggage inspection by a luggage screening entity, comprising:
making available to consumers a special lock having a combination lock portion and a master key lock portion, the master key lock portion for receiving a master key that can open the master key lock portion of this special lock, the special lock designed to be applied to an individual piece of airline luggage, the special lock also having an identification structure associated therewith that matches an identification structure previously provided to the luggage screening entity, which special lock the luggage screening entity has agreed to process in accordance with a special procedure,
marketing the special lock to the consumers in a manner that conveys to the consumers that the special lock will be subjected by the luggage screening entity to the special procedure,
the identification structure signaling to a luggage screener of the luggage screening entity who is screening luggage that the luggage screening entity has agreed to subject the special lock associated with the identification structure to the special procedure and that the luggage screening entity has a master key that opens the special lock, and
the luggage screening entity acting pursuant to a prior agreement to look for the identification structure while screening luggage and, upon finding said identification structure on an individual piece of luggage, to use the master key previously provided to the luggage screening entity to, if necessary, open the individual piece of luggage.
'537的claim 1描述改善航空行李檢查的方法，步驟一：提供特殊的鎖，其中有組合鎖（號碼鎖）的部分以及鑰匙部分、行銷這把特殊鎖說明這是為了機場檢查行李之用、其中有識別結構，行李檢查員擁有可開鎖的萬能鑰匙，當行李檢查員根據識別結構確認可以用萬能鑰匙開啟行李。
根據系爭專利的技術可知，這是一個結構裝置的專利，但是寫成方法專利就有「不適格」的問題，地方法院在審理專利適格性議題時，認為如上述'537的claim 1所描述的方法專利實質上描述了使用與行銷行李鎖的基本步驟，這是長期存在的基本經濟實踐與組織人類活動的方法。據此認為系爭專利為不可專利（ineligible）。
"The district court summarized: The claim “essentially describes the basic steps of using and
marketing a dual-access lock for luggage inspection, a longstanding fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity.”"
這個判定明顯是因為系爭專利僅是組織人類活動的技術，為抽象概念，CAFC同意地院意見，其中參考案例 - Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.，如同前例判斷組織抽象的特徵屬於不可專利標的。
- 判定人類活動、一般電腦功能為抽象概念的案例 - IV v. Symantec (CAFC 2016)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/10/iv-v-symantec-cafc-2016.html）
查看系爭專利的內容，如上述claim 1，其中採用了一個「特殊鎖」，但是申請專利範圍並未指出這個「特殊鎖」有何硬體上的特徵使其特別～。
"No “technical specifications or concrete improvements,” or identification of what physical changes are made to the lock mechanism to make the lock “special” found in the claim"
相關意見中引用了前例Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)，表示，當請求項的特徵為抽象，即便改善了抽象概念，也不會轉換為可專利。
CAFC確認地院判決。
my two cents:
其實系爭專利說明書內容是有些（但不曉得是否足夠）的硬體描述的，但主體仍是在描述檢查行李的程序，後見之明來看，如果專利範圍有硬體的描述，而非僅說是special，針對101議題，仍有可爭之處。
判決文：https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1908.OPINION.2-14-2022_1907705.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/id709smk3qfnbb1qc7rh0j82cnc03xi9）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言