后Bilski时代电子商务商业方法专利之因应与挑战  

A Study on E-Commerce Business Method Patent:Response and Challenge

作　　者：蔡步青[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871

出　　处：《河北法学》2012年第7期148-153,共6页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：美国法院早期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。受此影响,商业方法在美国一直被认为不应授予专利。后来法院提出如果抽象的商业方法与运用这种方法后发生了某种物理转换或者有形的装置相联系,则应承认其具有可专利性。1998年更是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条规定的方法发明须符合"机器或转换测试法",试图限缩商业方法专利的范围,但联邦最高法院在Bils-ki v.Kappos案中否认其为审查商业方法专利唯一的判断标准。在迄今为止仍存较大争议的背景下,如果既无技术贡献,亦无技术特征,更未与其实现所必须的计算机设备或计算程序相结合,而仅系解决商业经营的程序、步骤或者流程者,商业方法即应为人类智力活动的规则或方法,属于思想的范畴,而不属于专利权的保护客体。In the United States, a method of doing business had been deemed as mathematical algorithm and therefore excluded from eligible patentability in Hotelseeurity Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co. case in 1908, which formed the ＂ business method exception rule＂. However, in Parker vs. Flook case, Gottschalk vs. Benson case and Diamond vs. Diehr case, the U. S, Federal Supreme Court concluded in these cases that if an abstract business method results in a physical transformation of an article or is tied to a tangible machine, it should be a patent-eligible subject matter. In 1998, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit （CAFC） made it clear in State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signatare Financial Group case （＂State Street Case＂） that a business method is patentable if such invention fits in the requirement of patent law and produces an ＂useful, concrete, and tangible result＂. CAFC adopted ＂machine-or-transformation＂ test in In re Bilski case in 2008, and explained that a claim shall be tied to specific machines or transferred into other different things in accordance with U. S.C. § 101 to limit the scope of BMP. However, in Bilski v. Kappos case, the Federal Supreme Court denied that the ＂machine or transformation test＂ is the only standard to examine BMP. Therefore, the examination standard of BMP in U. S. is still arguable.

关 键 词：电子商务 商业方法专利 知识产权 计算机软件 互联网 

分 类 号：DF523.2[政治法律—民商法学]