In re Bilski和商业方法专利112808

TheBilskiDecisionandItsEffectsonBusinessMethodsPatentsLei(Eric)Tang,Ph.D.PerkinsCoieLLPNovember28,200835U.S.C.§101BackgroundPatentAct195235U.S.C.§101.InventionspatentableWhoeverinventsordiscoversanynewandusefulprocess,machine,manufacture,orcompositionofmatter,oranynewandusefulimprovementthereof,mayobtainapatenttherefor,subjecttotheconditionsandrequirementsofthistitle.LegislativeReport:“…anythingunderthesun”AnythingUndertheSun?

3

AnythingUndertheSun?

4

NotQuite!Courtshavelongheldthatlawsofnature,naturalphenomena,abstractideas,andmentalprocessesarenotpatent-eligiblesubjectmatter.BusinessMethodPatents:

the1998StateStreetDecisionBusinessmethodpatents:typicallyinvolvethesoftwareimplementationofabusinessmethod;andaretypicallyusedtoprotectthingsasonlineorderingprocesses,internetadvertisingschemes,insuranceriskreduction,reductionofforeigncurrencytradingrisk,etc.Businessmethodswerewidelydeemedunpatentablesubjectmatteruntil1998whenCAFCissuedtheStateStreetdecisionStateStreetconcernedadataprocessingsystemwithaninvestmentstructureformutualfundstopooltheirassetswithinaportfolioBusinessMethodPatents:

the1998StateStreetDecisionCourt:businessmethodsaresubjecttothesamelegalrequirementsforpatentabilityasappliedtoanyotherprocessormethodThe"useful,concreteandtangibleresult"test:"weholdthatthetransformationofdata,representingdiscretedollaramounts,byamachinethroughaseriesofmathematicalcalculationsintoafinalshareprice,constitutea[patent-eligibleinvention]becauseitproduces'auseful,concreteandtangibleresult'…"See,also,the1998AT&Tdecision:"BecausetheclaimedprocessappliestheBooleanprincipletoproduceauseful,concrete,tangibleresultwithoutpre-emptingotherusesofthemathematicalprinciple,onitsfacetheclaimedprocesscomfortablyfallswithinthescopeof§101."Overthepastdecade,thistesthasprovedtobealowbarforbusinessmethodsandtheStateStreetdecisionreleasedafloodofpatentapplicationsformethodsofdoingbusinessAnd,youknow,ofcourse,afloodofpatentlitigationsfollowedInreBilskiInreBilskiChronologyApril10,1997:USApplication08/833,892Claims1-11finallyrejectedunder35U.S.C.§101asnon-statutoryApril3,2003:BPAIhearingSeptember6,2006:BPAIdecisionaffirmingfinalrejectionOctober1,2007:oralargumentbeforeapaneloftheCAFCFebruary15,2008:CAFCordersenbancrehearingandrequestsanswerstofivespecificquestionsrelatingto35U.S.C.§101(patenteligiblesubjectmatter)May8,2008:CAFCoralargumentOctober30,2008:CAFCdecisionissuedClaim11.Amethodformanagingtheconsumptionriskcostsofacommoditysoldbyacommodityprovideratafixedpricecomprisingthestepsof:(a)initiatingaseriesoftransactionsbetweensaidcommodityproviderandconsumersofsaidcommoditywhereinsaidconsumerspurchasesaidcommodityatafixedratebaseduponhistoricalaverages,saidfixedratecorrespondingtoariskpositionofsaidconsumer;

(b)identifyingmarketparticipantsforsaidcommodityhavingacounter-riskpositiontosaidconsumers;and

(c)initiatingaseriesoftransactionsbetweensaidcommodityproviderandsaidmarketparticipantsatasecondfixedratesuchthatsaidseriesofmarketparticipanttransactionsbalancestheriskpositionofsaidseriesofconsumertransactions.ClaimdirectedtomethodofhedgingriskinthefieldofcommoditiestradingNo"machine,""computer,"or"technology"recitedinclaim1CAFC:NotPatentable!TrueIssue:Pre-empttheUseofa

FundamentalPrinciple?

"Thetrueissue...iswhetherApplicantsareseekingtoclaimafundamentalprinciple(suchasanabstractidea)…"AclaimdrawntofundamentalprincipleisunpatentableClaimseekstopre-empttheuseofafundamentalprinciplee.g.,claimtoaprocessofconvertingdatainbinary-codeddecimalformattopurebinaryformatviaanalgorithmprogrammedontoadigitalcomputerAnapplicationofalawofnatureormathematicalformulatoaknownstructureorprocessmaywellbedeservingofpatentprotectionClaimseeksonlytoforecloseothersfromusingaparticularapplicationofthefundamentalprinciplee.g.,claimtoaprocessforproducingcuredsyntheticrubberproductsemployingamathematicalequationTrueIssue:Pre-empttheUseofa

FundamentalPrinciple?

"Thequestion…iswhetherApplicants'claimrecitesafundamentalprincipleand,ifso,whetheritwouldpre-emptsubstantiallyallusesofthatfundamentalprincipleifallowed."TheMachine-or-TransformationTestAclaimedprocessissurelypatent-eligibleunder§101if:(1)itistiedtoaparticularmachineorapparatus,or(2)ittransformsaparticulararticleintoadifferentstateorthing.TheSOLEtestfordeterminingwhetheraprocessispatentablesubjectmatterTheMachine-or-TransformationTestThecourtfurtherholds:Themachine-or-transformationtestisatwo-branchedinquiry;anapplicantmayshowthataprocessclaimsatisfies§101:eitherbyshowingthathisclaimistiedtoaparticularmachine,ortheuseofaspecificmachineortransformationofanarticlemustimposemeaningfullimitsontheclaim'sscopetoimpartpatent-eligibilitytheinvolvementofthemachineortransformationintheclaimedprocessmustnotmerelybyinsignificantextra-solutionactivityhowever,thecourtleftunansweredthequestion,"whetherorwhenrecitationofacomputersufficestotieaprocessclaimtoaparticularmachine"byshowingthathisclaimtransformsanarticleintoadifferentstateofthingthistransformationmustbecentraltothepurposeoftheclaimedprocessTheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationofthatarticleispatenteligible?Physicalobjectsorsubstances:Yes"Itisvirtuallyself-evidentthataprocessforachemicalorphysicaltransformationofphysicalobjectsorsubstancesispatent-eligiblesubjectmatter"TheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationofthatarticleispatenteligible?Aretherawmaterialsofmanyinformation-ageprocesses,e.g.,electronicsignalsandelectronically-manipulateddata,"articles?"Howaboutthingslike,businessrisks,legalobligations,andorganizationalrelationships(suchasthatclaimedinBilski)?TheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationofthatarticleispatenteligible?Thecourtseemstorequirethatnon-tangible"articles"(e.g.,data,electronicsignals)berepresentativeofphysicalobjectsorsubstances:"Purportedtransformationsormanipulationssimplyofpublicorprivatelegalobligationsorrelationships,businessrisks,orothersuchabstractionscannotmeetthetestbecausetheyarenotphysicalobjectsorsubstances,andtheyarenotrepresentativeofphysicalobjectsorsubstancesTheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationofthatarticleispatenteligible?Thecourtseemstorequirethatnon-tangible"articles"(e.g.,data,electronicsignals)berepresentativeofphysicalobjectsorsubstances:InreAbele:Broad,independentclaimrecitingaprocessofgraphicallydisplayingvariancesofdatafromaveragevalues:notpatent-eligibletransformationofarticles"Thatclaimdidnotspecifyanyparticulartypeornatureofdata;nordiditspecifyhoworfromwherethedataobtainedorwhatthedatarepresented"Dependentclaimreciting"saiddataisX-rayattenuationdataproducedinatwodimensionalfieldbyacomputedtomographyscanner":patent-eligibletransformationofarticlesTransformationsofdatarepresentingphysicalandtangibleobjects:patent-eligibletransformationofarticlesElectronictransformationsofdataitselfissufficientNotrequiredtoinvolveanytransformationoftheunderlyingphysicalobjectsthatthedatarepresentedTheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationofthatarticleispatenteligible?Thecourtseemstorequirethatnon-tangible"articles"(e.g.,data,electronicsignals)berepresentativeofphysicalobjectsorsubstances:Ifthedataisarepresentativeofphysicalobjectsorsubstances,canthetransformationbeperformedentirelyinthehumanmind?NO."Aclaimedprocesswhereinalloftheprocessstepsmaybeperformedentirelyinthehumanmindisobviouslynottiedtoanymachineanddoesnottransformanyarticleintoadifferentstateorthing.Asaresult,itwouldnotbepatent-eligibleunder§101."LabCorp.v.MetaboliteLabs:medicaldiagnosticandsimilarmethodsthatareperformedentirelyinsideaphysician'sheadarenotpatent-eligiblesubjectmatterTheMachine-or-TransformationTestWhatisan"article"andwhatkindoftransformationof