美國程序類專利適格性判斷之實證研究 - 以美國聯邦最高法院Bilski判決為中心

Abstract

2008年美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（CAFC）在In re Bilski案判決中，認為大宗商品交易之避險策略方法不應准予專利，並建立「機器或轉換測試法」（Machine-or-Transformation Test）作為程序類發明是否為美國專利法第101條所言之專利適格標的之檢驗方法，提高了商業方法、軟體發明等類別被認可為適格專利標的之門檻。全案上訴後，最高法院維持原判決，認為該申請案屬抽象概念（abstract idea），非專利適格標的；但認為機器或轉換測試法係可適用但並非唯一的檢測方式。最高法院Bilski判決出爐後，美國專利商標局（USPTO）公告了2010年臨時性審查指南，以協助專利審查官作為審查準則。本文藉實證的方式，在該審查指南公告前後之一定期間內，對USPTO內部之專利訴願暨衝突委員會（BPAI）之訴願決定進行計量分析，探討新判斷流程之使用比例以及適用該流程對專利申請獲准率之影響性。本文並分析最高法院Bilski判決後一些值得注意的判決，試圖觀察專利標的適格性的判斷準則之發展。本研究發現，專利訴願暨衝突委員會有明顯提高新的兩階段判斷流程之比例，但是第二階段的抽象概念測試法，對專利申請的獲准並沒有實質的幫助，形同虛設；而聯邦巡迴上訴法院截至目前為止仍未發展出「抽象概念」的判斷準則，還是以機器轉換測試法為主要依據。顯示專利發明人仍應在撰寫專利說明書以及專利請求項時，將機器或轉換的部分描述清楚，以提高專利標的適格性被認可的機率。

In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the rejection of the patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943. For process claims, the CAFC reiterated the machine-or-transformation (MoT) test as the solely applicable test for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. In Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, though the U.S. Federal Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the CAFC, but it held that Bilski’s application was ineligible for patent protection because it was an unpatentable abstract idea. The Supreme Court also clarified that though “MoT” test is an important tool for determining the patentability of a process, however it is not the sole test as the Federal Circuit had held. After the Bilski case is made, the USPTO made an Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in view of Bilski v. Kappos (Interim Bilski Guidance, 2010) for its personnel when determining subject matter eligibility. With quantitative analysis, this article will review the decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) with certain periods before/after the announce date of the Interim Bilski Guidance to analyze the impact of the Bilski case based on the changes of the adopted test flow and of the allowance rate of patent claims. In order to understand the development of the rules on determining subject matter eligibility for process claims, this article also reviewed some notable decisions after the Bilski case. It is found that there is a significant increase in use of the new “two-stage process” in the BPAI decisions, however, the abstract idea test did not help with the determination of subject matter eligibility. Up to now, CAFC decisions still cannot establish the standard of the abstract idea test. Therefore, it is suggested that the patent applicants should still focus on the supports of the machine-or-transformation part in the patent description and claims to increase the allowance rate of the process claims.