美國方法專利適格－實證與研究

Eligibility for Process Claims：An Empirical Study on Subject Matter in the United States

曾鈺珺(Yu-June Tseng)

指導教授 ： 劉尚志

國立交通大學/管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2014.00815

摘要

美國專利法第101條規定：「任何人發明或發現有效任何新且有功效的方法、機器、製品或組合，或改良者，皆得依本法所定規定及條件下獲得專利。」又同法中未見其他專利適格例外之規範，足見就法規體系以觀，立法者對於專利適格要件，採了用寬鬆的態度。透過案例解釋累積，方法發明的也被做很廣泛的認定，包含所有太陽底下的人為事物，且美國專利法第101條之規定也被認為只是一門檻規定。儘管如此，美國聯邦最高法院仍透過案件解釋，建立了專利適格門檻排除之例外規定，即屬於自然法規、自然現象以及抽象想法之方法發明者，不具專利適格要件。然而美國專法第101條之立法目的，並非一味的禁止所有自然法規、自然現象以及抽象想法之發明取得專利權獨占性保障。
故美國司法案例解釋以及專利行政審查機關，透過哪種檢驗方式判斷方法發明具備美國專利法第101條之專利適格，為重要之議題，亦為本文研究核心。

關鍵字

方法專利 ； 專利適格 ； 機器或轉換測試 ； 美國專利法第101條

並列摘要

The United States Supreme Court’s interpretations of § 101 and the Patent and Tademark Office’s preferance embody this concern. Although § 35 U.S.C. 101’s text does not define the concept of “invention,” it permits a patent application for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” The statute’s broad language has long been thought to serve as little more than a threshold inquiry. Nonetheless, this threshold inquiry made ineligible patent applications involving laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Yet it also left other applications to the remaining rigors of the patent statute. Even then, § 101 was not thought to prohibit patents monopolizing discrete applications of such abstractions, such as manufacturing equipment that relied on certain laws of nature or natural phenomena.
The underlying legal question thus presented and also this article concerns about is what test or criteria governs the determination by the United States Patent and Tademark Office or courts as to whether a claim to a process is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 (eligible for examination).or, conversely, is drawn to unpatentable subject matter because it claims only a fundamental principle.

並列關鍵字

Process Claims ； Subject Matter ； 1. Machine or Transformation Test ； 35 U.S.C. 101

參考文獻

3. LANDES W. & R. POSNER, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003).

1. Abramowicz Michael & Duffy John F., The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 YALE L.J. 1590 (2011).

4. Lai E., Intellectual Property Protection in a Globalizing Era, 3(3) FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS ECONOMIC LETTER 1 (2008).

5. Lemley Mark A., Risch Michael, Sichelman Ted M. & Wagner R. Polk, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315 (2011).

8. Park Walter G., International Patent Protection: 1960-2005, 37 RESEARCH POLICY 761 (2008)