美国专利诉讼最新发展对专利申请和保护策略的影响 演讲人： 陈维国

美国专利诉讼的最新发展 I. 在专利局无效专利 II. 软件专利的有效性

美国专利诉讼的最新发展 I. 在专利局无效专利 II. 软件专利的有效性

America Invents Act美国发明法案 Thomas Jefferson High School 颁布日期：2011年9月16日

America Invents Act 美国发明法案

America Invents Act I. 美国发明法案 Effective Dates: September 16, 2011 Best Mode Tax Strategy Inventions Prioritized Examination PTO Fee Setting Authority Micro Entity False Marking 生效日期: 2011年9月16日 最佳实施例 税务策略发明 优先审查 专利商标局费用设定机构 微型实体 虚假标识

America Invents Act I. 美国发明法案 Effective Dates: September 16, 2012 Pre-issuance Third-Party Submissions Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) Supplemental Examination Reissue Amendment 生效日期： 2012年9月16日 颁布前第三方提交 授予后重审(PGR) 和双方重审(IPR) 补充审查 重新颁发修正案

America Invents Act I. 美国发明法案 Effective Dates: March 16, 2013: First Inventor to File Statutory Invention Registration: 生效日期： 2013年3月16日： 发明人申请优先制 法定发明注册

专利法改革制定的新的专利局无效程序 双方复审（Inter Partes Review, IPR） 授权后复审（Post Grant Review, PGR） 商业方法专利无效（Cover Business Method, CBM）

IPR 2012年9月16日以后实施的在专利局无效专利的新程序 类似于双方在专利局的诉讼 专利局在半年内决定是否启动，启动后一年内完成 成功率高 比法院诉讼费用低很多

Inter Partes Review: IPR 双方复审： May be filed after the later of either: 9 months after patent grant, or Within 1 year of being sued Replace inter partes reexamination 双方复审： 可在以下期间后提交： 专利授予9个月后 被起诉后1年内 代替双方重审

Inter Partes Review: 双方复审： IPR Basis: Patents and printed publications only (like current reexaminations) Grounds: Novelty and Obviousness only Threshold: Reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to a claim 双方复审： 基础：仅专利和印刷的出版物（与当前重审一样） 理由：仅新颖性和显而易见性 门槛：关于权利要求原告有获胜的合理可能性 12

IV. Mechanisms to Challenge IV. 质疑机制 Inter Partes Review: Petitioner required to identify all real parties in interest PTO must decide whether to initiate within 6 months Patentee may amend but not enlarge claims Board may allow discovery Burden of proof: preponderance of the evidence Final determination within 1 year, may enlarge by 6 months for good cause Either party may appeal final decision 双方复审： 原告需要指明真实的利益方 专利商标局必须在6个月内决定是否开始审查 专利权所有人可以修改但不可扩大权利要求范围 委员会可能允许证据开示 举证责任：证据的数量优势 在1年内做出最终决定，若有正当理由可延长6个月 每个当事方均可对最终裁定提起上诉

IPR 从2012年9月16日，共3000多件 有210多件有最终结果

IPR 结果 (以案件为单位) 全部被复审的权利要求被宣布无效的占72.88% 至少有一个权利要求被宣布无效或被迫修改的占87.29%

IPR 结果 (以权利要求为单位) 所有案件中权利要求被宣布无效的占67.76% 16

CBM 结果 以案件为单位 以权利要求为单位

时间考虑 从启动到结案: 353 Days

IPR IPR对科技公司申请策略的影响： 官费：$23,000 律师费：$200,000-300,000

Unilin 公司的地板专利案 http://www.sina.com.cn 2007年01月25日 几天前，大洋彼岸传来一个令所有中国木地板企业震惊的坏消息：美国国际贸易委员会（ITC）最终裁定，… 中国16家地板企业败诉。 欧洲的Unilin公司 … 发明了地板锁扣技术… 中国木地板企业 …，在全球范围内招聘律师团应诉，总应诉费超过800万美元。 …　终裁宣判的同时，ITC还签发了普遍排除令，随后，美国海关将根据该令要求限制相关产品进口。 此番所涉产品出口量高达1.75亿美元，这一“悲剧性”结果将波及中国近5000家地板企业。倘若中国企业仍想继续在美国市场销售，则必须一次性支付10万至12万美元专利许可费，以及每销售1平方米另付0.65美元费用。据称，Unilin公司迄今已在全世界收取了30亿美元专利费。

Unilin 公司的地板专利 美国申请号08/872,044批准的专利号6,006,486

Unilin 公司的地板专利 以最早的’044申请为基础，共申请的近50个专利 Child Continuity Data 09/471,014 filed on 12-23-1999 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 10/256,183 filed on 09-27-2002 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 10/266,667 filed on 10-09-2002 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 10/266,700 filed on 10-09-2002 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 10/266,669 filed on 10-09-2002 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 10/265,657 filed on 10-08-2002 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/215,010 filed on 08-31-2005 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/215,009 filed on 08-31-2005 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/215,037 filed on 08-31-2005 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/239,085 filed on 09-30-2005 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/417,201 filed on 05-04-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/417,189 filed on 05-04-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,826 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,819 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,818 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,834 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,832 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,667 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,807 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,806 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,676 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/449,678 filed on 06-09-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/451,358 filed on 06-13-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/451,370 filed on 06-13-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/453,815 filed on 06-16-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/454,059 filed on 06-16-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/473,199 filed on 06-23-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/473,200 filed on 06-23-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/476,877 filed on 06-29-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/481,806 filed on 07-07-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/481,922 filed on 07-07-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/481,921 filed on 07-07-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/488,674 filed on 07-19-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/606,107 filed on 11-30-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/642,778 filed on 12-21-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/647,197 filed on 12-29-2006 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/822,581 filed on 07-09-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/822,582 filed on 07-09-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/822,580 filed on 07-09-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/976,986 filed on 10-30-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/976,985 filed on 10-30-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/976,987 filed on 10-30-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/976,980 filed on 10-30-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/979,105 filed on 10-31-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 11/979,106 filed on 10-31-2007 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 12/872,231 filed on 08-31-2010 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 12/872,258 filed on 08-31-2010 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 13/733,412 filed on 01-03-2013 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 14/306,822 filed on 06-17-2014 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/872,044 14/677,664 filed on 04-02-2015 which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/872,044 以最早的’044申请为基础，共申请的近50个专利

Unilin 公司的地板专利 Unilin第一个专利申请： Application Number: 08/872,044 Filing Date: 06-10-1997 Unilin最近申请的专利：14/677,664 filed on 04-02-2015 which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/872,044

Unilin 公司的地板专利 数量众多的专利，让竞争对手很难无效所有专利 多样化，从不同的角度来主张权利，组建专利网，扩大保护范围，让竞争对手很难绕开

IPR IPR对科技公司申请策略的影响： 2. 权利要求范围分层次，有宽有窄，有些权利要求可以被维持有效。

IPR IPR对科技公司申请策略的影响： 3. 说明书更为详细，多举实施例 IPR程序中，允许修改或者替代权利要求。但修改或者替代必须是缩窄权利要求，并被说明书支持。如果说明书更为详细，可能可以支持将来的修改。

IPR IPR对科技公司诉讼策略的影响： 2. IPR几乎成为公司应诉的首选策略； 3. 降低专利诉讼数量； 4. 降低被迫的专利许可。 1. 非常有效、快速、经济对抗专利诉讼的手段； 2. IPR几乎成为公司应诉的首选策略； 3. 降低专利诉讼数量； 4. 降低被迫的专利许可。

美国专利诉讼的最新发展 I. 在专利局无效专利 II. 软件专利的有效性

Case Analysis: Alice v. CLS Bank USPTO Guidelines Strategies for Prosecution and Litigation

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 Alice澳大利亚公司，拥有管理金融风险的专利 5,970,479、6,912,510、7,149,720和7,725,375 专利属于同一家族，有大致相同的说明书 主题是避免结算风险的发明（双方的交易中，一方交付，而另一方没有交付，对交付方造成的风险） 专利用计算机提供交易平台，该交易平台采用可信的第三方来保证交易双方履行各自的交付义务

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 CLS Bank在全球提供帮助货币交易的平台网络 2007年5月，CLS Bank在美国哥伦比亚特区的联邦地区法院对Alice提起诉讼，要求法院宣布Alice的专利无效 Alice反诉CLS Bank侵犯其专利权。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 479专利中的权利要求33最具有代表性： 33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of: (a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions; (b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record; (c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and (d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 权利要求的中文大意是： 33. 一个交易双方互换交付义务的方法，该交易双方的每一方在一个互换机构保有信用记录和债务记录，该信用记录和债务记录是用来履行交付义务的，该方法包括下面步骤： (a)为每一个利益相关者制作一个影子信用记录和影子债务记录，该影子信用记录和影子债务记录被该互换机构中的一个监督机构独立保持； (b)从每一个互换机构获得每天开始时的每一个影子信用记录和影子债务记录； (c)对于每一个导致有交付义务的交易，该监督机构调整每一个交易方的影子信用记录或影子债务记录，只允许那些不会导致影子债务记录的数值低于影子信用记录数值的交易，每一次调整是按照时间顺序发生；和 (d)在每天结束时，该监督机构指示互换机构根据按照允许的交易所做的调整，去互换信用和债务记录中的信用或债务，该信用和债务是放在互换机构上的、不可撤回的、不随时间变化的交付。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 Alice的专利中还有计算机可读媒介的权利要求 375专利的权利要求39大概内容是： A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code …, the computer program product comprising: program code for causing a computer to send a transaction …; and program code for causing a computer to allow viewing of information ….

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 权利要求的中文大意是： 39. 一个计算机软件产品包括计算机可读存储介质，该计算机可读存储介质有计算机可读软件代码，该计算机软件产品包括： 导致计算机发送一个交易的软件代码…;和 导致计算机允许观察信息的软件代码…。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 Alice的专利里还包含系统权利要求： 系统权利要求一般要求一个计算机系统，包含通用的部件，如存储器和微处理器，用于执行一定的功能 720专利中权利要求1，其大意如下： A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising: a data storage unit having stored therein information about a shadow credit record and shadow debit record …; and a computer, coupled to said data storage unit, that is configured to (a) receive a transaction; (b) electronically adjust said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record …

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 其中文大意如下： 一个用于实现交易双方互换交付义务的处理系统，该系统包括： 数据存储单元，该数据存储单元已经存储了影子信用记录和影子债务记录的信息；和 计算机，该计算机和该数据存储单元相连，该计算机是用来(a)收到一个交易；(b)以电子的方式调整影子信用记录和/或影子债务记录…。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 联邦地区法院依据最高法院在Bilski案里确立的原则，认定涉案的所有权利要求都是指向采用中立的中间方实现同时履行交付义务，从而降低交易风险的抽象的概念，因此，这些权利要求不具有可专利性。 Alice上诉到联邦巡回上诉法院，联邦巡回上诉法院先是由3人的审判组审理了该案，该审判组认为，Alice的专利里的权利要求符合美国专利法第101条的规定，具有可专利性，因此推翻了联邦地区法院的判决。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 CLS Bank要求联邦巡回上诉法院全体法官出席重新审理该案。在重审中，联邦巡回上诉法院推翻了审判组的判决，维持了联邦地区法院的所有权利要求由于不具有可专利性而无效的判决。 有7名法官认为Alice专利中的方法权利要求和计算机可读媒介权利要求不具有可专利性 有5名法官认为系统权利要求不具有可专利性

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 Alice上诉到联邦最高法院 联邦最高法院判决 重申了专利法不保护自然定律、自然现象和抽象概念的基本原则 认识到“在一定程度上，所有的发明，都包含、使用、体现、基于、或适用自然定律、自然现象或抽象概念” 主张， “因此，一个发明不能因为它包含抽象的概念而被认定不具有可专利性”

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 联邦最高法院判决 在Mayo的判例里，确立了如何区分可专利的权利要求和只包括自然定律、自然现象或抽象概念的不可专利的权利要求的基本框架 框架包括两个步骤： 第一确定权利要求是否是指向那些不能获得专利的自然定律、自然现象或抽象概念； 第二，如果是，确定权利要求是否还包括其他“发明概念 (inventive concept)——这些其他内容要足以把权利要求的本质转化成可受专利保护的客体。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 联邦最高法院判决 Alice的权利要求和Bilski案里的权利要求类似，指向抽象的概念 专利都是关于利用中间方来解决交易中的交付风险问题 用通用的计算机去执行算法（算法即抽象的概念），并不会为抽象的概念加入发明性的内容 系统和计算机可读媒介的权利要求也没有对抽象概念加入什么实质的内容，因此也不具有可专利性。

最高法院CLS Bank v. Alice案 联邦最高法院判决 Alice的权利要求和Bilski案里的权利要求类似，指向抽象的概念 例如，Alice主张的具体的硬件只不过是“数据处理系统(data processing system)”、“通讯控制器(communications controller)”和“数据存储单元(data storage unit)”。这些都是纯粹功能性的和通用的部件。几乎所有的计算机都包含这些部件。没有任何一个权利要求里包含的硬件对该权利要求提供有意义的限定。这些系统权利要求和方法权利要求没有本质的区别。

Case Analysis: Alice v. CLS Bank USPTO Guidelines Strategies for Prosecution and Litigation

USPTO Guidelines December 16, 2014 Guidelines focus on analyzing claims with abstract ideas particularly, computer-implemented abstract ideas Apply Mayo framework Same analysis for all types of judicial exceptions (e.g., natural laws) and all types of claims 2014年12月16日 指南专注于对含有抽象概念的权利要求进行分析 特别是，计算机实施的抽象概念 适用Mayo 案框架 对其他类型的例外(例如自然定律)和其他类型的权利要求做相同的分析

USPTO: Three-Step Analysis Two-Part Analysis for Abstract Ideas: PART ONE: Is claim is directed to an abstract idea? Examples: fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; mathematical relationships/formulas 抽象概念的两部分分析: 第一部分: 权利要求是否指向抽象概念? 例子: 基础经济操作；组织人类活动的某此方法；概念/想法本身；数学关系/公式

USPTO: Three-Step Analysis PART TWO: Any claim element(s) significantly more than the abstract idea? Any limitations that show a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea (i.e. more than mere instruction to apply abstract idea) If no, subject matter not eligible 第二部分: 有没有权利要求要素，显著不同于抽象概念? 有没有对抽象概念进行了具有专利适格性适用的任何限制。 (即，不仅仅限于适用抽象概念的指示) 如果不是，标的物不具有适格性

“Significantly Different” Limitations that may provide a significant difference Improvements to another technology or technological field Involvement of a particular machine Transformation of an article Improvements on computer functionalities 可能提供显著不同的限制 对另一技术或技术领域的改进技术 涉及一种特定机器 对一个物质的转换 改善计算机的功能

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 涉案的专利6,993,572和7,818,399发明是关于网站上做广告的技术: 拥有网页的人一般会出售网页的部分版面，给电子商务做广告。广告会包含一个网页链接。当浏览网页的潜在消费者点击广告的时候，该消费者的浏览器会被自动链接到做广告的广告客户公司的网站。消费者可以在广告客户公司的网站上购买产品。 这种模式的缺点是消费者一旦点击广告之后，就被链接到其他的网站，而最开始把消费者吸引到网站上的广告商公司对消费者则失去了任何的控制。 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 发明： 用第三方的服务器提供和广告商网站相似的网站，在消费者点击广告之后，广告的链接把消费者链接到第三方的网站，消费者可以在第三方网站上购买广告的产品。 第三方存储广告商网站上的特色内容，这些内容在呈现在网页上的时候，会使看到的人感觉到就是在广告商的网站上。 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 发明： 在消费者点击广告之后，第三方利用这些特色内容和广告的产品，重新构架一个网页。消费者可以在该网页上购买产品，同时，消费者还会感觉到是在广告商的网站上，而并没有离开广告商的网页。这个架构是广告商既能收到广告收入，又能够不流失消费者。 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 比较有代表的权利要求是权利要求19。 19. A system useful in an outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising: (a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first web pages; (i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to one of a plurality of web page owners; (ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and (iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other; (b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to: (i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first web pages; (ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first web pages on which the link has been activated; (iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and (iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page. Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 19． 一个为提供商业机会网页提供外包服务的系统，包括： (a) 一个存有数据的计算机存储器，为众多的第一网页中的每一个网页，定义众多视觉上可察觉部分，这些部分都和这些网页直接关联；(i)每一个第一网页归属一个网站所有人所有；(ii) 每一个第一网页含有至少一个链接，该链接和一个商家的一个购买机会相连；(iii)商家、外包服务商和网站所有人各为独立的一方； (b) 外包服务商有计算机服务器，该服务器和网站所有人的计算机存储器相连，该服务器被编程去执行：(i) 接受网页上链接被点击的信号；(ii)自动的把被点击链接所在的第一网页认定为源网页；(iii) 相应的，自动提取和源网页相关的被存储的数据；(iv) 使用被提取的数据，自动构造并在浏览器中呈现第二个网页，该第二个网页包括：(A)被点击链接相关的商务项目和(B)源网页上视觉可察觉的众多部分。 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 权利要求19主张一个计算机系统，因此落入美国专利法第101条规定的器械的类别。问题是该权利要求是否落入抽象概念这一司法判定的例外情况。 这个权利要求主张自动采用源网页上的一些视觉可察觉的元素，构造一个含有原来网页上链接所指向的产品的信息的新网页。 该权利要求并不是主张一个数学算法、经济上或者已用的一些商业实践。 权利要求主张的发明解决了一个互联网上存在的问题。发明并不是像有些互联网相关的专利，只是把已有的商业上的实践搬到互联网上。而发明要解决的问题是源于计算机互联网。因此权利要求不是指向一个抽象的概念，不会落入司法判定的三个例外，发明属于受专利保护的客体。 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com 要点： 专利要解决问题是植根于计算机网络领域中的特定问题 不属于抽象概念 Both of the examples discussed on these slides are based upon decisions that cite Alice v. CLS Claim also recited commercial features e.g. a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity from a selected merchant, but this did not count against it Claim does not recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice Claim does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Court cautioned that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible.

Example – Image Processing A method of generating a device profile that describes properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system, comprising: generating first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content; generating second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content; and combining first and second data into device profile. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics For Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Example – Image Processing 生成设备特性描述的一个方法，它对数字图 片复制系统中一个设备的特性进行了描述： 生成第一数据，对基于图案的颜色信息内容 转换进行了描述; 生成第二数据，对基于图案的空间信息内容 转换进行了描述；和将第一数据和第二数据 合并为设备特性描述。 Digitech Image Technologies, LLC 诉 Electronics For Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (联邦巡回法院. 2014)

Example – Image Processing 步骤1: 是否指向抽象概念： 是 – 仅仅使用了算术关系，以生成设备特性 描述信息，但不限于使对设备特性描述信息 的任何使用。 步骤2: 是否有significantly more的其他要素： 否 – 在抽象思维以外无附加要素 Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics For Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Case Analysis: Alice v. CLS Bank USPTO Guidelines Strategies for Prosecution and Litigation

Lessons from Alice: Safe Harbors [1] The invention should “improve the functioning of the computer” Don’t simply say software invention operates on a computer Explain how the software improves the operation of the computer or serves as a solution to the technical problem E.g., instead of claiming an improvement in online trading, claim the optimization routines (parallel processing) to improve its operation, including improving online trading [1] 发明应“改善计算机本身的功效。” 不要简单地声称：在一台计算机运行软件发明 解释该软件如何改善了计算机的运行或构成技术问 题的解决方案。 如，对在线交易改进技术，对计算机系统中所使用的优化 例行程序（并行处理）提出权利要求，以改善其运行，包 括改善在线交易。

Lessons from Alice: Safe Harbors [2] The invention should effect an improvement in another technology or technical field Be certain patent specification describes a technical problem and the invention solves that technical problem Consider using fields in which the process may be applied, such as medical technology, industrial engineering, logistics, communications, etc. [2] 该发明应在另一技术或技术领域实施了改进。 确认专利技术说明书对技术问题进行了描述；并 且该发明解决了该技术问题。 考虑可能应用该程序的领域，如医疗技术，工业 工程，物流，通讯等等。

Prosecution Strategies Include system or device claims Provide support in your specification Claims include a technical solution, not just a business process Put device claim first 包括系统或装置权利要求，考虑把系统权利要求放在方法权利要求前面 在你的说明书中对硬件提供支持 让你的权利要求包含一个技术解决方案，包含硬件部分，而非仅仅一个商业流程 把硬件权利要求放在前面

Prosecution Strategies Method claims include “significantly more” than the underlying abstract idea for satisfying § 101 Claim how computer or device performs steps of a method, interaction between multiple machines Claim “tangible application” to “real world” use e.g., if a value or result is calculated, explain how it is used outside of claimed process 权利要求包括显著不同于抽象概念内容，以满足第101条 主张计算机或装置如何实施方法的步骤以及多个机器间的互动。 主张“有形应用”至“真实世界”的使用 比如，如果对价值或结果进行计算，解释是如何在权利要求方法以外对它进行使用

Prosecution Strategies Specification emphasizes technical aspects of invention Include multiple embodiments and fall-back positions Can be presented through dependent claims Some claims: “machine-or-transformation” test Avoid reliance on “generic” computer or machine Include specific computer or application environment(s) 技术说明书应强调发明的技术方面 包括多个实施例和后退立场 可能通过从属权利要求提出 确保一些权利要求符合“机器或转换”测试 避免依赖“一般”计算机或机器 包括特殊计算机或应用环境

Prosecution Strategies: Dealing with PTO Rejections Talk to the examiner/SPE to refine claim language Be prepared to respond to “abstract idea” rejections Consult and cite USPTO’s Guidance Look to Federal Circuit cases for examples of patent-eligible claims (E.g. DDR case) 在申请期间，同审查人员/SPE进行会晤 准备好应对“抽象概念”驳回 咨询和引用美国专利商标局有关法定客体的指南 在联邦巡回法院案例中寻找具有专利适格性权利要求的例子。（比如. DDR 案）

例子

Thank You! 谢谢！ 67

演讲者简介 陈维国 Weiguo (Will) Chen (will.chen@finnegan.com/1.650.849.6729) 美国飞翰律师事务所合伙人 陈维国律师在处理专利诉讼、专利侵权和有效性分析及专利的准备与申请方面拥有丰富经验，其业务涉及广泛的技术领域，包括电信、网络、软件、电子电路、和医疗仪器等。   陈律师经常就知识产权的各个方面在中国的会议和研讨会上发言，话题包括：美国专利诉讼、专利申请和专利组合管理等。他独特的中国和美国教育与工作背景，使他能够深入了解中国公司在国际化过程中，面临的知识产权问题和所需要的知识产权服务，能够帮助中国公司应对国外公司的知识产权诉讼，为它们成功的在美国销售产品提供法律保障。