反思美國專利適格原則

Abstract

專利適格性與新穎性、實用性（產業利用性）、非顯而易見性（進步性）和揭露等要件共同決定何種發明有資格獲得專利保護。新興科技，特別是分子生物學和電腦軟體領域的發明，挑戰了傳統的專利適格定義。這些發明的複雜程度使專利適格原則必須達到微妙的平衡：過於寬泛的標準可能導致大量劣質專利，對社會的效益微乎其微；而過於嚴苛的標準可能排除有價值的發明，減少社會大眾從事創新或改良的誘因。

美國最高法院自2010年以來的四個判決建立了Alice/Mayo框架，極大程度限縮了專利適格範圍。該框架引入「抽象概念」（abstract idea）和「發明概念」（inventive concept）作為判斷標準，與早期Chakrabarty一案所支持寬泛的專利適格範圍形成對比。此外，Alice/Mayo框架確立的兩階段測試方法提高了專利的不確定性和法院判決的不一致性，因為其用語定義模糊，且內涵與非顯而易見性等其他可專利要件有所重疊。

專利適格原則的最新發展突顯了最高法院在形塑美國專利法中扮演的關鍵角色。法院的介入旨在消除專利例外主義，使專利法與一般法律原則保持一致。雖然Alice/Mayo框架可以處理劣質專利和相關的濫訴問題，但它也面臨可能阻礙技術創新的批評。不過對於修改該框架的呼籲，最高法院無意採取行動。這些持續的爭論反映了專利法長期存在的政策挑戰，它們與歷史上的困境相似，但日新月異的科技和相互對立的產業利益使情況更加複雜。解決這些挑戰需要基於完整的實證數據達成廣泛共識，以調和各方經濟利益，同時考慮不同道德價值觀和願景的衝突。

Patent eligibility determines which inventions qualify for patent protection, alongside criteria such as novelty, utility, nonobviousness, and disclosure. Emerging technologies, particularly in the fields of molecular biology and computer software, have challenged traditional definitions of patent eligibility. The complexity of these inventions necessitates a delicate balance: overly broad criteria may result in numerous low-quality patents with minimal societal benefit, while overly narrow criteria could exclude valuable innovations and reduce incentives for future advancements.

The Alice/Mayo framework, established by a quartet of post-2010 Supreme Court decisions, has significantly restricted the scope of patentable subject matter. This framework, focusing on “abstract ideas” and “inventive concepts,” contrasts with the broader interpretation supported by the earlier Chakrabarty decision, which embraced a more inclusive view of patentable inventions. Additionally, the Alice/Mayo two-step test has introduced unpredictability and inconsistent judicial opinions due to vague definitions and overlap with other patentability requirements, such as nonobviousness.

Recent developments in patent eligibility doctrine underscore the Supreme Court’s central role in shaping U.S. patent law. The Court’s interventions aim to eliminate patent exceptionalism and align patent law with general legal principles. While the Alice/Mayo framework addresses concerns about low-quality patents and aggressive enforcement, it has faced criticism for potentially hindering technological innovation. Despite calls for refinement, the Court has shown limited interest in modifying the framework. These ongoing debates reflect persistent policy challenges in patent law, echoing historical struggles intensified by rapid technological advancements and competing industry interests. Resolving these challenges requires a broad consensus based on comprehensive empirical data to reconcile economic interests among stakeholders while considering clashes of moral values and differing visions for the future.