Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
在过去的十年中，成千上万的商业方法被授予了专利权。亚马逊网站获得的专利是在线“单击”付费系统。美林公司的资产分配方案得到了法律保护。有个发明者的提箱技巧也获得了专利。 Now the nation’s top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, a s the case is known, is “a very big deal,” says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”
现在，该国最高专利法院似乎完全准备好要缩减商业方法专利，因为商业方法专利自从十年前第一次批准授予以来一直有争议。在一项使得知识产权律师们议论纷纷的提议中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院声称它将利用某个具体案件来对商业方法专利进行广泛的复审。密苏里大学法学院Dennis D. Crouch说，“正如人们所知道的那样，Bilski案例是一件非常大的事情”它可能将消除整个专利类别”。
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
对于商业方法诉求的限制是个戏剧性的彻底变化，因为正是联邦巡回法院自己引进了这种专利。那是在1998年，对于所谓的美国道富银行的案件中，联邦巡回法院做出了判决，批准了筹集共同基金资产的方法具有专利权。这一裁决使得商业方法专利文件以几何数级增加，起初只是一些新兴的网络公司对于某些特定类型的在线交易系统试图争取独家专有权。后来，越来越多的老牌公司也竞相将此类专利入卷归档，至少作为防御措施，以防竞争对手抢占先机。2005年，IBM公司在一份法院案卷中发现自己被授予了超过300多项商业方法专利，尽管连它自己都质疑这种专利授权的法律基础。无独有偶，一些华尔街
投资公司也用多项金融产品专利来武装自己，即使是在他们出席反对此类专利的法案中，他们也以此专利维权。
注：to the punch的英文解释为to the first blow or to decisive action ― usually used with beat
所以这里翻译为“先下手为强”或“抢占先机”。
The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court’s judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should “reconsider” its State Street Bank ruling.
前面提到的Bilski案例牵扯到一份已申请的方法专利，即关于能源市场的风险规避方法（注：也可译为“套期保值或对冲风险”）。上诉法院罕见地裁定，该案件将不由三位法官听审，而是由全部十二名法官共同进行。另外，上诉法院还宣布，它想探讨的另一件事情是是否应该“重审”道富银行的裁决。
The Federal Circuit’s action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the
Federal Circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court,” says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
联邦巡回法院的这一裁决效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判决，缩小了专利持有者的受保范围。例如，去年四月，法官们认定太多的专利授予了一些显而易见的“发明”。乔治华盛顿大学法律学院的专利法律师Harold C. Wegner教授表示，“联邦巡回法院的法官们正在对最高法院的反专利动态做出反应”。
豫公网安备41160202000603
站长QQ:729038198
关于我们
投诉建议