研究生: |
徐偉甄 Wei-Chen Hsu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
從美國法院判決探討電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之國際調和 A Study of International Harmonization on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Software from the US Court's Decisions |
指導教授: |
劉國讚
Kuo-Tsan Liu |
口試委員: |
廖承威
Cheng-Wei Liao 陳昭華 Chao-Hua Chen |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
應用科技學院 - 專利研究所 Graduate Institute of Patent |
論文出版年: | 2015 |
畢業學年度: | 103 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 94 |
中文關鍵詞: | 電腦軟體 、電腦軟體專利 、專利標的適格性 、機器或轉換測試法 、抽象概念 |
外文關鍵詞: | computer software, computer software patent, patent subject matter eligibility, machine-or-transformation test, abstract idea |
相關次數: | 點閱:1304 下載:22 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
電腦軟體是否具有專利標的適格性一直是備受爭議的話題,各國規定亦不盡相同,本文主要從美國聯邦最高法院之Bilski v. Kappos案以後之美國法院判決出發去探討電腦軟體之專利標的適格性,進而分析美國判斷電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之演變,並針對美國、歐洲及我國之電腦軟體專利制度進行綜合比較,以及對於機器或轉換測試法與抽象概念提出相關問題進行探討。
本文之研究方法為案例研究法、比較研究法及文獻分析法,案例研究法:以近年來美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院有關電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之判決為對象;比較研究法:以美國判斷電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之規則為主軸,輔以歐洲及我國之相關規定;文獻分析法:蒐集與電腦軟體之專利標的適格性相關之國內外期刊文章及學位論文等文獻資料,進行整理、分析與比較。
本文研究結果:(1)美國對於電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之判斷標準漸趨嚴格,電腦軟體容易被認定屬抽象概念而不具專利標的適格性;(2)美國、歐洲及我國之電腦軟體專利制度係高度調和,運用較明確的歐洲規定有助於評估美國之電腦軟體之專利標的適格性;(3)機器或轉換測試法已不復存在,但抽象概念測試尚有待進一步提供明確的判斷方法。
The question of whether computer software is patent-eligible has been a controversial topic. Different countries have varied regulations for computer software patent. This study mainly uses US court decisions after the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos to explore patent subject matter eligibility of computer software, then to analyze the evolution for determination of patent subject matter eligibility of computer software in the US, to comprehensive compare the computer software patent systems in the US, Europe and Taiwan, and to raise and discuss relevant issues with the machine-or-transformation test and abstract idea.
The methodologies of this study are case study, comparative method and literature analysis. Case study: the objects are recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases related to patent subject matter eligibility of computer software. Comparative method: the objects are regulations for determining patent subject matter eligibility of computer software in the US, Europe and Taiwan. Literature analysis: the objects are domestic and foreign journal papers and dissertations related to patent subject matter eligibility of computer software.
The results of this study: (1) criteria for determining patent subject matter eligibility of computer software in the US is becoming more strict, computer software is very likely to be determined to be directed to an abstract idea and thus ineligible for patent protection; (2) there is a great harmonization of computer software patent systems in the US, Europe and Taiwan, the use of more specific European regulations helps to determine patent subject matter eligibility of computer software in the US; (3) the machine-or-transformation test has ceased to exist, and the abstract idea test needs to be more specific.
中文
期刊文章
吳科慶(2014),「無助於技術性的特徵」之探討分析,智慧財產權月刊,第189期,頁5-14。
吳科慶、林育弘(2013),由CLS v. Alice案看美國電腦軟體相關發明審查基準之變革趨勢分析,智慧財產權月刊,第177期,頁6-22。
李京叡、謝進忠、顏俊仁、李清棋(2013),電腦軟體相關發明之可專利標的及明確且充分揭露之記載原則,智慧財產權月刊,第172期,頁5-52。
李森堙(2012),Bilski案判決後的美國方法發明專利標的適格性認定,科技法律透析,第24卷第2期,頁2-7。
袁建中(2009),綜觀全球軟體專利發展十年回顧,智慧財產季刊,第68期,頁54-62。
張啟聰(2011),美國程序專利法制之探討-以In re Bilski案為中心,東吳法律學報,第22卷第3期,頁149-186。
郭宏杉(2012),後Bilski方法專利之發展-CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc.之評析,萬國法律,第181期,頁92-100。
陳龍昇(2012),由美國Bilski v. Kappos案探討商業方法發明之專利適格性,臺北大學法學論叢,第84期,頁231-286。
陳龍昇(2014),由美國聯邦最高法院Alice v. CLS bank案探討電腦軟體專利適格性,萬國法律,第196期,頁13-20。
劉國讚(2010),電腦軟體相關發明申請專利範圍之解釋與侵權-以日本實務為中心,智慧財產權月刊,第136期,頁5-38。
劉國讚、周汝文(2008),論電腦軟體關聯發明之可專利性-以歐洲專利局審查實務為中心,智慧財產權月刊,第112期,頁5-51。
學位論文
谷亦洵(2011),商業方法專利適格性之研究,世新大學智慧財產權研究所碩士論文。
林金東(2008),軟體可專利性相關問題之研究,國立政治大學法學院碩士在職專班碩士論文。
柯翔文(2014),由美國CLS v. Alice案探討電腦軟體之專利適格性,國立臺灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
陳忠偉(2011),美國程序類專利適格性判斷之實證研究-以美國聯邦最高法院Bilski判決為中心,國立交通大學科技法律學程碩士論文。
曾珮慈(2012),從美國與歐盟法制論電腦軟體與商業方法之可專利性爭議,國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
曾筠淮(2013),論電腦軟體相關發明專利客體之界限:由Mayo案之審查標準出發,國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
謝任華(2011),電腦軟體之專利標的適格性探討,國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
網路資料
五大局受理專利商標申請概況,經濟部智慧財產局網站:https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=541754&ctNode=7123&mp=1(最後點閱時間:2015年5月18日)
英文
期刊文章
Agarwal, P. K., Beck, G. C., Brinckerhoff, C. C., Gills, J. M., Gray, J. E., Rigsby, C. J. and Suh, K. K. (2014), Supreme Court: Generic Computer Implementation Does Not Render Abstract Ideas Patentable, Ipls Proceedings, 25(3), 13-14.
Borella, M. S. and Noonan, K. E. (2014), Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, snippets, 12(3), 1-3.
Gaff, B. M. (2014), Supreme Court IP Update, IEEE Computer Society, 47(7), 9-12.
Gaudry, K. (2014), Alice Aftermath: Frequent 101 Rejections and Infrequent Allowance in Business-Method Art Units, Ipls Proceedings, 25(3), 15-17.
Hsieh, D. (2014), Current Issues with Patenting Software, IEEE Potentials, 33(6), 16-20.
Roux, J. D. (2014), The Supreme Court and § 101 Jurisprudence: Reconciling Subject-Matter Patentability Standards and the Abstract Idea Exception, University of Illinois Law Review, 2014, 629-661.
Samuelson, P. (2014), Updates on the intellectual property front, Communications of the ACM, 57(11), 28-30.
Stern, R. H. (2014), Alice v. CLS Bank: Are US Business-Method and Software Patents Doomed? Part 1, IEEE Micro, 34(5), 64-69.
Stern, R. H. (2014), Alice v. CLS Bank: Are US Business-Method and Software Patents Doomed? Part 2, IEEE Micro, 34(6), 98-105.
網路資料
Alert: Supreme Court Rules On Computer Software Patent Claims, briggs.com:
http://www.briggs.com/insights-publications-Alert-Supreme-Court-Rules-On-Computer-Software-Patent-Claims.html (last visited May 18, 2015).
Computer Software, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software (last visited May 18, 2015).
Cory Janssen, Software Patent, techopedia.com: http://www.techopedia.com/definition/22199/software-patent (last visited May 18, 2015).
Patentable Subject Matter, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter (last visited May 18, 2015).
Patents for software? European law and practice, EPO: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/software.html (last visited May 18, 2015).
Software patents Under the European Patent Convention, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention (last visited May 18, 2015).
Software Patents under United States Patent Law, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law (last visited May 18, 2015).