后Bilski时代电子商务商业方法专利之因应与挑战

发布时间：2018-09-16 21:08

【摘要】：商业方法专利"是指由计算机辅助实施经营、管理或适用于财经信息处理过程的技术方法所获得的专利。早期美国法院在1908年Hotelsecuritychecking co.v.lorraine co.案中,曾以商业方法属于数学演绎方法为由,将商业方法排除在专利保护之外。受此案件影响,美国一直认为商业方法不应授予专利,即"商业方法专利除外原则"。美国法院在Parker vs.Flook案、Gottschalk vs.Benson案及Diamond vs.Diehr案中,虽再次强调自然法则、自然现象与抽象概念不受专利保护,但提出假如抽象的商业方法与运用这种方法发生了某种物理转换或者与有形的装置相联系,则应承认其具有可专利性;其后,美国法院于1998年的State Street Bank案中,更表明只要该项发明能导出"实用、具体、有形之结果"者,仍不失其可专利性,否认了商业方法在美国专利法中存在例外。虽然美国联邦巡回上诉法院在In re Bilski案中,提出美国专利法第101条规定之方法发明,需符合"机器或转换测试法",试图限缩商业方法专利的范围,然经美国联邦最高法院于Bilaki v.Kappos案中否认其为审查商业方法专利唯一的判断标准。因此,关于美国核发商业方法专利的审查基准,迄今仍有争议。
[Abstract]:A business method patent "means a patent obtained by a computer-aided operation, management, or technical process applicable to the processing of financial information." Early American courts in 1908 Hotelsecuritychecking co.v.lorraine co. In the case, business methods were excluded from patent protection on the grounds that business methods were mathematical deductive methods. Affected by this case, the United States has always believed that business methods should not be granted patents, that is, the Business method Patent exclusion principle. The United States courts in the Parker vs.Flook case, Gottschalk vs.Benson case and the Diamond vs.Diehr case, although again emphasizing the law of nature, the natural phenomena and abstract concepts are not subject to patent protection. It was suggested, however, that abstract commercial methods should be recognized as patentable if there was a physical conversion to their application or if they were associated with physical devices; subsequently, in the 1998 State Street Bank case, the United States Court of Justice, It also shows that as long as the invention can lead to "practical, concrete, tangible results", it still does not lose its patentability and denies the existence of exceptions to commercial methods in the United States patent law. Although the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of In re Bilski, argued that the invention of a method under Section 101 of the United States Patent Law would have to comply with the Machine or conversion Test Act, trying to limit the scope of a business method patent, In Bilaki v.Kappos, however, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that it was the only criterion for examining business method patents. As a result, the U. S. approval of business methods patent review benchmark, still controversial.
【作者单位】：北京大学法学院;
【分类号】：D971.2

【参考文献】