|
''Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International'', 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), was a 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court about patentable subject matter (patent eligibility).〔Since about 2000, the US Supreme Court and lower federal courts have tended to use the term "patent eligibility" rather than the terms "patentable subject matter" or "statutory subject matter" to describe the kinds of thing that can be patented, if novel and otherwise meeting the requirements for patent applications, in contrast to the kinds of thing, such as ideas, laws of nature, and mathematical principles, on which patents may not be granted. Recent Supreme Court opinions use the term "patent eligible" (and its converse "patent ineligible") almost exclusively in this connection. The opinion in the ''Alice'' case discussed in this article is an example illustrating the point. In current US usage, the term "patentability" is reserved to describe failure to meet other requirements for a patent grant, such as not being obvious over the prior art, satisfying the enablement requirement, and the like.〕 The issue in the case was whether certain claims about a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service for facilitating financial transactions covered abstract ideas ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that idea into patentable subject matter. Although the ''Alice'' opinion did not mention software as such, the case was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on software for business methods.〔"By clarifying that the addition of a generic computer was not enough for § 101 patentability, ''Alice'' has had a significant impact on software patents. In ''Alice''&hair;'s wake, the Federal Circuit and numerous district courts have wrestled with the issue of whether various software patents disclose the “inventive concept” required for patentability." ''Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.'', - F. Supp. 3d -, -, 2015 WL 4345069, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015).〕 It and the 2010 Supreme Court decision in ''Bilski v. Kappos'', another case involving software for a business method (which also did not opine on software as such〔Dennis Crouch, ''(Bilski v.Kappos: Business methods out, Software still patentable ),'' Patently O, (Jun. 28, 2010)〕), were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of software–related inventions since the ''Diamond v. Diehr'' in 1981.〔Jones Day, ''(Commentary: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank )'', Jones Day, (Jun. 2014)〕 == Background == Alice Corporation ("Alice") owned four patents on electronic methods and computer programs for financial-trading systems on which trades between two parties who are to exchange payment are settled by a third party in ways that reduce "settlement risk"—the risk that one party will perform while the other will not. Alice alleged that CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd. (collectively "CLS Bank") began to use similar technology in 2002. Alice accused CLS Bank of infringement of Alice's patents, and when the parties did not resolve the issue this declaratory judgment and patent infringement action followed. The relevant claims are in these patents: * US patent 5,970,479 filed 1992, issued 1999 (available (at the USPTO site ) and ) * US patent 6,912,510 filed 2000, issued 2005 (available (at the USPTO site ) and ) * US patent 7,149,720 filed 2002, issued 2006 (available (at the USPTO site ) and ) * US patent 7,725,375 filed 2005, issued 2010 (available (at the USPTO site ) and ) The concept of a third-party to confirm a complete transaction is called escrow, and has been used in finance for hundreds of years.〔The term is said to date from the 1590s. See (Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary ), ''escrow'' (accessed: June 30, 2015).〕 Alice's patents described how the escrow function could be performed by a general-purpose computer. However, they did not describe how such a computer would work, and did not include any source code or specific details. Australian inventor Ian Shepherd received the patents in 1999, and then formed Alice Corporation to own them. However, Alice never produced any such computer system as described in the patents, nor used the patents in any business. As a result, the company has been called a patent troll. CLS, a consortium of banks, actually developed such a computer system that it uses to facilitate trillions of dollars in transactions every day.〔Roger Parloff, ''(Supreme Court to decide when ideas become too 'abstract' to patent )'', Fortune.com, Mar. 28, 2014 (last visited June 19, 2014).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|