第一章 緒論
第二節 研究問題與研究目的：美國商業方法專利適格性的發展趨勢及後續影響
許多美國跨國企業的商業方法（例如 Oracle、IBM 等）或電子商務平臺（例如近 年來席捲全球的 eBay），都直接或間接影響到臺灣的個別企業與臺灣對美的貿易 用專利保護的態度，有極大的差異。歐洲的專利公約（European Patent Convention）
第 52 條 2 項 c 款明文規定：商業方法是排除在可專利發明（patentable invention）
之外21。歐洲專利局（European Patent Office，簡稱 EPO）公佈的審查指南第 G 章 3.5 節也明確指出：商業方法牽涉抽象或人類智能的特徵，無論是多複雜的方法 或是任何的科技考量，只要可以運用人類大腦運算，且不具有任何技術特徵
（technological character），就屬於不可專利的發明（non-patentable inventions）22。
然而，歐洲專利公約並沒有完全斬斷商業方法可專利性的後路。它在公約同 條文第 3 項附上了但書，明文不可專利的發明限縮在商業方法態樣本身（as such）
23。歐洲專利局在審查指南的同章第 3.6 節就明定，只要申請的專利標的具備技 術特徵，就不受公約第 52 條 2 和 3 款的限制24。在立法層次上，雖然歐洲專利
19 Alice v. CLS Bank: United States Supreme Court Establishes General Patentability Test, August 2014, WIPO Magazine, available at http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2014/04/article_0004.html (last visited: December 25, 2015).
20 Patent Cooperation Treaty Yearly Review: The International Patent System, June 2015, World Intellectual Property Organization, available at
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_901_2015.pdf (last visited: December 25, 2015).
21 Article 52(2)(c) EPC 1973: “The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:…(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers.”
22 Guideline for Examination in the EPO G-II, 3.5: “Schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business: … These are further examples of items of an abstract or intellectual character…. This method may exclusively be carried out mentally and thus lacks technical character, regardless of the complexity of the method or any technical considerations involved…”
23 Article 52(3) EPC 1973: “Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.”
24 Guideline for Examination in the EPO G-II, 3.5: “Programs for computer:… if the claimed
subject-‧
能夠「利用方法解決科技問題」（“problem and solution approach”）25。而且，這樣的技術特徵並非聚焦在商務或金融特性上面，而是取決於科技領域的新穎與
matter has a technical character it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).”
25 Robert. J. Harriosn, Business Method Patents in Europe, 24 IP Law Group, September 2012.
26 Id.
27 Stefan Wanger, Business Method Patents in Europe and their Strategic Use: Evidence from Franking Device manufacturers, LMU Working Paper, 8, November 2006.
28 吳科慶、林育弘，〈由 CLS v. Alice 案看美國電腦軟體相關發明審查基準之變革趨勢分析〉，
智慧財產權月刊，頁 21，177 期，2013 年 9 月。
29 同前註。
30 See generally Jan Walaski, Business Method Patents after Alice: US Moves Closer to Europe, Inside IP: Venner Shipley’s Intellectual Property Magazine, 10-11, Autumn/Winter 2014, available at
http://www.vennershipley.co.uk/uploads/files/Website_files.pdf (last visited: December 25, 2015); see also Alice v. CLS Bank: United States Supreme Court Establishes General Patentability Test, supra note 19.
‧
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
發展趨勢。也希望這樣的歸納分析，能對我國專利政策的擬定與專利法規的修訂，
提供最新的參考依據；進而使我國的專利制度能夠順利地與國際接軌，以保護多 年來在海內外辛苦打拼的臺灣企業與社會民眾。