商業方法專利之研究—從美國Bilski案出發探討現今實務之發展

Abstract

商業方法是否可以獲得專利一直以來有所爭議。早期美國實務在1908年的Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.一案中，確立了「商業方法除外原則」。然而，在1998年State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group一案中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院廢除了「商業方法除外原則」，並且對專利適格性採用了寬鬆的「有用、具體與有形的結果」判斷標準，從此打開的商業方法專利的大門，但也導致商業方法專利申請趨於氾濫之情形，而學說界或實務界，對於商業方法能否取得專利爭議一直未曾停歇。直到2008年Bilski一案中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決結果雖未否認商業方法之專利適格性，但轉而採取較為嚴格的「機器或轉換測試」判斷標準。不過，最高法院並未完全採納聯邦巡迴上訴法院的見解，所以在Bilski案之後，實務對於商業方法適格性的判斷仍未趨一致。直到2014年CLS案中，最高法院對於商業方法專利適格的判斷提供了較為明確的判斷方式。 相對於美國仍陷於專利適格性之爭論，日本及歐洲實務界對於商業方法專利除了探討專利適格性即可專利性要件之外，亦著重在進步性要件之判斷。日本實務對於可專利性採取「整合硬體資源」判斷標準，歐洲實務則強調「技術性」，兩者對於可專利性均設下較寬鬆之門檻，但在進步性的審查則採取嚴格的標準，並且著重在「技術貢獻」的判斷。本研究認為，我國實務雖然受到美國實務的影響，但目前日本及歐洲在商業方法專利的審查較為明確，因此我國實務不妨對可專利性採取較寬鬆的門檻，但對於進步性採取較嚴格的審查標準。

Whether business methods can be patented has been somewhat controversial. Early in 1908 in the U.S. practice, the Hotel Security Checking Co. V. Lorraine Co.'s Case established 'business methods exception principle.' However, in the State Street Bank & Trust Co. V. Signature Financial Group case in 1998, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals repealed of this principle and adopted a liberal 'useful, concrete and tangible result' criterion. Since then the number of business method patent applications increased significantly. However, business method patent dispute had not been able to stop. Until the Bilski case in 2008, although the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals did not deny that business method patents are patentable, it took a more stringent “machine or transformation test” criterion. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not fully adopt the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. After the Bilski case, practice in U.S. has not yet reached a consistent interpretation about the patentability of the business method patent. Until the CLS case in 2014, the Supreme Court provided a more definitive judgment to determine the patentability of the business method patent. Contrast to the controversy of patentability in the U.S., the practice in Japan and Europe discussed not only the patentability but also the inventive step (non-obviousness). Japanese practice take “integrated hardware resources” criterion for patentability, and European practice emphasizes “technical character.” Both of them set the lower threshold for the patentability, but they also adopted rigorous review for inventive step. The study suggests that despite the impact of the U.S. practice, the current standard of Japan and Europe practice is more clearly, so the Taiwan practice may take the similar standard of Japan and Europe.