:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:美國程序專利法制之探討--以In re Bilski案為中心
書刊名:東吳法律學報
作者:張啟聰
作者(外文):Chang, Chi-tsung
出版日期:2011
卷期:22:3
頁次:頁149-186
主題關鍵詞:方法專利程序專利商業方法軟體專利BilskiMethod patentProcess patentBusiness method
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:22
美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CAFC)於2008年10月30日,針對美國專利法第101條所列之各項專利適格標的中之「程序」類型,作出重要之判決(In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008),簡稱In re Bilski 案或本案)。該判決就「程序」專利採取相當嚴格之認定規則,推翻了過去十年來美國法院所傾向採取之寬鬆政策,引起各界熱烈討論。此判決對各種程序類型發明,例如通訊、軟體、資訊、商業方法等,皆有重大之影響。尤因該判決主張具有專利標的適格之程序類型發明必須限定於特定之機器或裝置,或將一特定物品轉變成為一不同的狀態或物體,故可預見的是許多商業方法將因不限定於特定裝置上實施、或未造成形態轉變而無法取得專利,對產業界影響甚鉅。雖美國聯邦最高法院於2010年6 月28 日判決推翻了聯邦巡迴上訴法院的見解,但各界對聯邦最高法院之判決褒貶不一,支持聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決者仍大有人在,可預見就此議題,未來仍將持續發酵。有鑑於此,本文針對聯邦巡迴上訴法院及聯邦最高法院之判決加以分析,就該等判決之適法性及妥當性加以分析檢討,並就專利標的適格之判斷提出個人之淺見,以供學界與實務界參考,盼得拋磚引玉,促進各界對此議題之重視。
On October 30, 2008, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States (CAFC) released its decision over In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008) (”In Re Bilski”), in which the court took a stringent position on patentability of a claimed process, in contrast with the US courts' laissez-faire policy over this issue in the past 10 years, inducing fervent discussions from the public. The said decision is expected to have noteworthy impact on patentability of processes, such as communication, software, information and business methods. In particular, it is expected to affect the patentability of business methods and thus the interests of certain industries, as the decision states that a claimed process is patent-eligible only if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing, while quote a number of business methods are not tied to a particular machine, nor do they transform any article into different states or things. The Supreme Court of the United States (the ”Supreme Court”) did not stand by the CAFC's decision and overturned that decision on June 28, 2010. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's decision is not welcome by all and quite many critics still support the CAFC's decision, indicating relentless discussions on this subject matter are to come. As such, comments to the decisions are provided in this essay based on legal research into the decision's legality and appropriateness, in hopes that more attention will be drawn to the patentability of process in both the academic circle and the industry sector.
期刊論文
1.李治安(20011200)。商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究。科技法律透析,13(12),48-62。  延伸查詢new window
2.Biddinger, Brian P.(2001)。Limiting The business Method Patent: A Comparison And Proposed Alignment of European, Japanese And United States Patent Law。Fordham L. Rev.,69,2523-2524。  new window
3.Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper(2000)。Are Business Patents Bad For Business?。COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J.,16,263。  new window
4.Raskind, Leo J.(1999)。The State Street Bank Decision : The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection ofr Methods of Doing Business。FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L. J.,10。  new window
5.Dratler, Jay Jr.(2005)。Alice Wonderland Meets the U.S. Patents System。AKRON L.REV.,38。  new window
6.Korn, Russell A.(2002)。Is Legislation the Answer? An Analysis of the Proposed Legislation for Business Method Patents。FLA. ST. U.L.REV.,29。  new window
7.Krause, William(2000)。Sweeping the E-Commerce Patent Minefield : The Need for a Workable Business Method Exception。SEATTLE U.L.REV.,24。  new window
8.Matelan, Lois(2007)。The Continuing Controversy Over Business Method Patents。FORDHAM INTELL PROP. MEDIA. & ENT. L. J.,18。  new window
9.Moy, R. Carl(2002)。Subjecting Rembrandt to the Rule of Law : Rule-Based Solutions for Determining the Patentability of Business Methods。WM. MITCHELL L.REV.,28。  new window
10.Pollack, Malla(2002)。The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents : Common Sense, Congressional Consideration, and Constitutional History。RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L. J.,28,61。  new window
11.Price, Douglas L.(2004)。Assessing the Patentability of Financial Services and Products。J. HIGH TECH. L.,3。  new window
12.Sfekas, James S.(2007)。Controlling Business Method Patens: How the Japanese Standard for Patenting Software Could Bring Reasonable Limitations to Business Method Patents in the United States。PAC. RIM. L. & POL’Y J.,16。  new window
13.Smith, Nicholas A.(2002)。Business Method Patents and Their Limits: Justifications, History, and the Emergence of A Claim Construction Jurisprudence。MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L.REV.,9。  new window
14.Thomas, John R.(1999)。The Patenting of the Liberal Professions。B.C. L.REV.,40。  new window
15.Walterscheid, Edward C.(1994)。The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents。LP.T.O.S.,76。  new window
16.Xiang, Joy Y.(2002)。How Wide Should the Gate of “Technology” Be? Patentablity of Business Methods in China。PAC. RIM L. & POL’Y J.,11。  new window
學位論文
1.張啟聰(2002)。發明專利要件「進步性」之研究。東吳大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.李文賢(2005)。專利法要論。臺北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.立法院(2003)。立法院公報。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Atkinson, R.D.,Mckay, A.S.(2007)。Digtal Prosperity : Understanding the Economic Benefit Of The Information Technology Revolution,http://www.itif.org/files/ditigal_prosperity.pdf, 20090901。  new window
2.Software & Info. Indus. Ass' N。Software And Information : Driving the Knowledge Economy,http://www.siia.net/estore/globecon-08.pdf, 20090901。  new window
3.United States Patent and Trademark Office。Class 705 Application Filings and Patents Issued Date,http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/pbmethod/applicatonfiling, 20090223。  new window
4.(2000)。Uspto White Paper, Automated Financial or Management Data Processing Methods (Business Methods),http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/whitepaper.pdf, 20090901。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE