论商业方法的专利保护

发布时间：2019-04-26 00:04

【摘要】：近年来，随着商业模式的不断创新和计算机网络技术的快速发展，与计算机软件和网络技术相关的有创意的商业方法也就不断涌现出来，给企业带来利润的同时，也带来了关于保护与侵权的争议。各个国家相继采取不同政策应对。美国通过1998年的STATE STREET BANK案首开商业方法专利保护的大门，日本及时跟进，欧盟在最初的反对之后，顺应趋势，自1999年起开始为商业方法提供专利保护。虽然美日欧等各国相继将商业方法纳入专利保护，但各国采取了不同的专利审查标准。近年来，在全球经济一体化的形势下，国家知识产权局也采取了一些行动，由过去的消极应对变为现在的积极采取措施。严峻的现实告诉我们，商业方法专利的保护机制刻不容缓。本文通过对几个典型案例的简析，引出本文的争议点。即1998年7月的道富银行信托公司诉签记金融集团公司案（State Street Bank），此案揭开了美国商业方法专利保护的序幕，然而在2008年的的比尔斯基(In re Bilski)案中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院放弃了State Street Bank案中判定标准，提出较为严格的机器或转换标准，借以限制商业方法专利。在各国相继打开商业方法专利大门，我国没有采取相应政策，2002年《南方周末》披露的“花旗银行抢注专利事件”引起银行界的轩然大波，这场风波终结于国家知识产权局复审委员会“专利申请无效”决定，然而2010年岁，风波又起，商业方法专利围剿与反商业方法专利围剿在第三方支付市场又拉开了帷幕。通过这四个案例，引出三个问题：商业方法专利概念该如何界定，授予商业方法专利的必要性，以及我国应对商业方法专利化的措施。本文围绕这三个问题结合实际案例进行探讨，通过对商业方法专利保护制度与实践进行分析研究，试图找到我国的应对之道。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the continuous innovation of business models and the rapid development of computer network technology, creative business methods related to computer software and network technology have emerged constantly, bringing profits to enterprises at the same time. It has also brought controversy about protection and infringement. Various countries have adopted different policies one after another. The United States opened the door to patent protection for business methods through the 1998 STATE STREET BANK case. Japan followed up in a timely manner. After the initial objections, the EU followed the trend and began to provide patent protection for business methods since 1999. Although the United States, Japan, Europe and other countries have incorporated business methods into patent protection, countries have adopted different patent examination standards. In recent years, in the global economic integration situation, the State intellectual property Office has also taken some actions, from the past negative response to the present active measures. The grim reality tells us that the protection mechanism of business method patent is urgent. Through the brief analysis of several typical cases, this paper leads to the controversial points of this paper. That is, in July 1998, the State Street Bank Trust Company v. signature Financial Corporation case, (State Street Bank), opened the prelude to the patent protection of American business methods. However, in the Bilsky (In re Bilski) case in 2008, The Federal Circuit Court of Appeal waived the criteria in the State Street Bank case and proposed stricter machine or conversion criteria to limit patents on business methods. Countries have opened the door to patent patents for business methods one after another, and China has not adopted corresponding policies. The "Citibank pre-emptive Patent incident" disclosed in "Southern weekend" in 2002 caused a great stir in the banking world. The storm ended with a decision by the State intellectual property Office's Review Board to "invalidate" patent applications. However, at the age of 2010, the storm began again, with business methods patent encirclement and anti-business methods patent encirclement and suppression in the third-party payment market again. Through these four cases, three questions are drawn: how to define the concept of business method patent, the necessity of granting business method patent, and the measures to deal with the patenting of business method in China. This paper discusses these three problems combined with practical cases, through the analysis of the business method patent protection system and practice, tries to find out the way to deal with it in our country.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.42

【参考文献】