第三章 美國電腦實施商業方法之專利適格性
第五節 二步分析法
二步分析法係聯邦最高法院藉由 Mayo v. Prometheus 案及 Alice v. CLS bank 案判決所確立之最新的判斷專利標的適格性之架構。以下將依序介紹相關判決要 旨。
第一項 Mayo v. Prometheus141
系爭專利為 Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.申請之有關醫療上的檢測方法，其 請求項內容在於校準硫嘌呤藥物(Thiopurine Drug)的正確劑量，主要步驟包含施 用（administering）藥物產生代謝物、確定（determining）代謝物濃度及指示
（indicating）要增加的藥物劑量142。
首先，聯邦最高法院認為本案之方法請求項本質上屬於不受專利保護的自然 義(significantly more)的元件(亦稱為「發明概念(inventive concept)」)，使得系爭
141 Mayo v. Prometheus, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).
142 Claim 1: A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.
143 Mayo v. Prometheus, supra note 141, at 1291.
‧
Alice 公司擁有 4 件美國專利（5,970,479、6,912,510、7,149,720、7,725,375）， 系爭專利是關於金融交易的電子交易平台，在此平台中由雙方信任的第三方介入
144 a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an “inventive concept,” sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself.
145 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 768 F.Supp.2d 221 (D.D.C. 2011).
146 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
147 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
148 Claim 33 of US5,970,479: A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each
‧
所以只是無意義的後置行動（insignificant post-solution activity）。系爭方法請求 項 並 未 描 述 重 要 且 非 習 知 的 人 為 貢 獻 （ nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution），故其並未提供一個發明概念（inventive concept）（“the requirement for computer participation in these claims fails to supply an ‘inventive concept’ that represents a nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution or materially narrows the claims relative to the abstract idea they embrace.”）。若准予專利權，將會壟斷此抽 象概念（“upholding Alice's claims to methods of financial intermediation would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.”）149。
第二目 電腦可讀媒體請求項150
respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
149 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., supra note 147, at 1285-87.
150 Claim 39 of US7,725,375: A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied in the medium for use by a party to exchange an obligation between a first party and a second party, the computer program product comprising:
program code for causing a computer to send a transaction from said first party relating to an exchange obligation arising from a currency exchange transaction between said first party and said second party;
and
program code for causing a computer to allow viewing of information relating to processing, by a supervisory institution, of said exchange obligation, wherein said processing includes (1) maintaining information about a first account for the first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and information about a third account for the second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; (2) electronically adjusting said first account and said third account, in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party, after ensuring that said first party and/ or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and (3) generating an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to
‧
CAFC認為系統請求項通常不適用抽象法則除外（abstract ideas exception），
應屬第101條之適格客體。然CAFC重申在判斷請求項是否屬第101條之適格客體 時，應先判斷其內容是否可能導致某抽象概念被獨占？若為肯定，則應判斷該請 求項中的限制條件是否足以使該請求項限縮至該抽象概念之應用？若為肯定，則 該請求項始具專利適格性（“when § 101 issues arise, the same analysis should apply regardless of claim format: Does the claim, in practical effect, place an abstract idea at risk of preemption? And, if so, do the limitations of the claim, including any computer-based limitations, add ‘enough’ beyond the abstract idea itself to limit the claim to a narrower, patent-eligible application of that idea? Or, is it merely a Trojan horse designed to enable abstract claims to slide through the screen of patent eligibility?”）153。
adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or said third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.
151 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., supra note 147, 1287-89.
152 Claim 1 of US7,149,720: A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:
a data storage unit having stored therein information about a shadow credit record and shadow debit record for a party, independent from a credit record and debit record maintained by an exchange institution; and
a computer, coupled to said data storage unit, that is configured to (a) receive a transaction; (b) electronically adjust said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction, allowing only those transactions that do not result in a value of said shadow debit record being less than a value of said shadow credit record; and (c) generate an instruction to said exchange institution at the end of a period of time to adjust said credit record and/or said debit record in accordance with the adjustment of said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said exchange institution.
153 CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., supra note 147, 1290.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
準此，CAFC認為系爭系統請求項雖然有增加諸如資料儲存單元及電腦等硬 體元件，然這些元件皆非「有意義的限制（meaningful limitation）」，因為任何 一般用途的電腦皆包括上述元件可用以執行系爭系統請求項的步驟（“Although the system claims associate certain computer components with some of the method steps, none of the recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.”）。因此，系爭系統請求項所增加的限制並未提供 顯著的發明概念（inventive concept），仍是描述關於第三方調解的抽象概念，只 不過是另外加上「在電腦上應用（apply it on a computer）」的文字。因此系爭系 統請求項亦不具專利適格性154。
第三款 聯邦最高法院判決155
聯邦最高法院認為本案應採用 Mayo 案的二步分析架構來檢驗系爭請求項是 否屬第 101 條之適格客體。首先，第一步驟是確認系爭請求項是否涉及自然法 則、自然現象或抽象概念等非專利適格的基本原理。若為肯定，則第二步驟是確 認系爭請求項中的額外元件是否足以將基本原理轉換為專利適格的應用。第二步 驟又稱為尋找「發明概念(inventive concept)」，亦即能使系爭請求項並非僅導向 基本原理本身的「更有意義(significantly more)」的元件或其組合（“In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. … we set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts … If so, we then ask, ‘what else is there in the claims before us?’ … To answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and
‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform
154 Id. at 1291-92.
155 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application … We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.’ ”）156。
根據上開架構，聯邦最高法院認為本案之請求項皆屬中介調解(intermediated settlement)的概念，跟 Bilski 案的避險概念一樣都是抽象概念。至於第二步驟之 檢驗，聯邦最高法院認為僅在請求項中加入一般電腦(generic computer)元件並不 足以使抽象概念成為專利適格客體（“the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”）
157。而系爭方法請求項的步驟皆可用一般電腦的一般電腦功能加以實現，並不足 以將抽象概念轉換為專利適格的應用。因此，系爭方法請求項無法通過第二步驟 之檢驗而不具專利標的適格性158。
至於本案的電腦可讀媒體請求項以及系統請求項，聯邦最高法院認為系爭請 求項中所描述的硬體元件均為一般電腦具備的功能。因此，上開硬體元件並未提 供有意義的限制，使得系爭請求項仍屬抽象概念而不具專利標的適格性159。
第六節 Alice 案之影響
第一項 依據第 101 條核駁之比例大增
根據圖 1 的統計資料，在聯邦最高法院於 2014 年 6 月作出 Alice 案判決後，
美國專利商標局（USPTO）於 2014 年 7 月所作成的專利審查意見通知中依據第 101 條核駁之比例相較於 2014 年 1 月明顯增加。而影響最明顯的當屬商業方法 專利，其因第 101 條而被核駁之比例從 2014 年 1 月的百分之四十幾驟升到 2014 年 7 月的接近百分之百。
156 Id. at 2355.
157 Id. at 2358.
158 Id. at 2359-60.
159 Id. at 2360.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
圖 1：Alice 案判決前後 USPTO 依據第 101 條核駁之百分比160
第二項 不具專利標的適格性之判決增加
在聯邦最高法院作出 Alice 案判決後，CAFC 在多個案件中皆採用 Alice 案 的二步分析架構，並進而判定系爭專利不具專利標的適格性。例如 BuySAFE, Inc.
v. Google, Inc.案161、Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC 案162及 Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC 案163等。其中又以 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC 案最足以作為代表。
然而，儘管不具專利標的適格性之判決增加，CAFC 仍於 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.一案中作出系爭軟體專利具專利標的適格性之判決。以下簡述
160 Kate Gaudry & Angel Lezak, Impact of Post-Alice Guidelines on Examination in Business Method Art Units (2015), http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/jan21forum_gaudry-lezak.pdf (last visited:
2015/02/02).
161 BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
162 Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, No. 2013-1663, 2014 WL 4195188 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014).
163 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544, 2014 WL 5904902 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
這兩件在 Alice 案判決之後具代表性之判決要旨。
第一款 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
CAFC 針對本案總共作成三次判決，因其前兩次判決皆被聯邦最高法院駁 回，而這兩次判決皆由 Rader 法官主筆。本案之 Ultramercial 公司之專利係一種 在網路上透過點選廣告來免費獲得具著作權產品之方法。在第一次判決中，CAFC 認為系爭請求項並非主張數學演算法、心智程序或抽象概念，因此具專利標的適 格性164。在第一次被聯邦最高法院駁回後，CAFC 在第二次判決中採用 Alice 案 中 CAFC 全院聯席判決之見解，認為系爭請求項具有更有意義(significantly more) 的限制，使得系爭請求項並非只是使用廣告作為交換方式的抽象概念，也不會獨 占該概念在所有領域之使用，因此仍具專利標的適格性165。
然而，在聯邦最高法院作出 Alice 案判決後，聯邦最高法院再度駁回 CAFC 上開第二次判決，並要求 CAFC 依 Alice 案判決之見解重新判決。CAFC 於是在 第三次判決中採用 Alice 案的二步分析架構。首先，在第一步驟之檢驗，CAFC 認為系爭方法請求項中的步驟皆為抽象概念。接著，在第二步驟之檢驗，CAFC 認為系爭方法請求項並無法將該抽象概念轉換成專利適格客體，因為系爭方法請 求項只是教導用常規(routine)的習知活動(conventional activity)來實施該抽象概 念，因此並不具有專利標的適格性166。
第二款 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.167
本件是 DDR Holdings, LLC 主張 National Leisure Group, Inc.與 World Travel Holdings, Inc.（合稱 NLG）等公司侵害其所擁有之美國專利第 7,818,399 及
本件是 DDR Holdings, LLC 主張 National Leisure Group, Inc.與 World Travel Holdings, Inc.（合稱 NLG）等公司侵害其所擁有之美國專利第 7,818,399 及