終於有個軟體專利適格了! (Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2016))

Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2016)

Federal Circuit says software patent claims not abstract, are patent eligible (IP Watchdog, May 13, 2016)

US Patent 6,151,604 (claims 17, 31, and 32)

US Patent 6,163,775 (claims 31 and 32)

Enfish LLC於2012年在中加州地院起訴Microsoft的ADO.NET侵害其與 "自參照式資料表 (self-referential table) " 相關的兩件美國專利的五個請求項。地方法院認為五個請求項都是抽象概念，所以裁定Enfish的專利因不適格而無效。Enfish上訴後，聯邦巡迴上訴法院撤銷了加州地院的裁定。

這個判決有幾個重點值得一提。


首先，關於聯邦最高法院在Alice案中建立的兩步測試，聯邦巡迴上訴法院解釋了第一步究竟怎麼操作。這很重要，因為聯邦最高法院就這點，從來沒講清楚過。

首先，Alice兩步測試的第一步，是判斷請求項是否 "指向 (direct to)" 一個不適格的概念。聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，所謂 "指向 (direct to)" 不僅僅是 "涉及 (involve)"，而是判斷請求項整體的特性是否指向被排除的標的：

The “directed to” inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon—after all, they take place in the physical world. ...... Rather, the “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether “their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”

(判決文第10頁，斜體字是原文，紅字與粗體是我加的。)

聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，跟硬體無關的軟體不一定就必定指向抽象概念，所以即使在Alice兩步測試的第一步，我們也必須問，請求項是指向電腦功能改善，還是指向抽象概念：

We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract and, therefore, must be considered at step two...... Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the second step of the Alice analysis. Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route. We thus see no reason to conclude that all claims directed to improvements in computer-related technology, including those directed to software, are abstract and necessarily analyzed at the second step of Alice, nor do we believe that Alice so directs. Therefore, we find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis. 

(判決文第11頁。紅字是我加的。)

因此，本案中Alice兩步測試的第一步，是看看請求項的焦點是否在特定電腦功能的改善 (比如電腦資料庫的自參照資料表)，還是在只把電腦當成工具的，可當成是抽象概念的流程：

For that reason, the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. 

(判決文第11頁。紅字與粗體是我加的。)

講到這邊，聯邦巡迴上訴法院已經講得很具體了。軟體專利就算不綁硬體，只要軟體本身有涉及電腦本身的功能改善，就可以通過Alice兩步測試的第一步。相反地，如果軟體只是把硬體當成工具，本身與比如經濟活動有關，那麼第一步很可能就不會通過。

基於這個概念，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為本案的請求項在Alice兩步測試的第一步中，並未指向抽象概念。

比如 '604專利的請求項17：

A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising:

• means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including: 
• a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information; 
• a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; and 
• means for indexing data stored in said table.

這個請求項採用了美國專利法112條第6項的 "功能手段用語" 的寫法，所以範圍限縮在說明書所揭露的結構及其均等物。就軟體專利，所謂 "結構" 指的是演算法 (這個觀念請見這個案子：EON Corp. IP Holdings LC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015))。這個請求項中，“means for configuring” 所對應的說明書中所揭露的演算法包括了以下四步：

1. Create, in a computer memory, a logical table that need not be stored contiguously in the computer memory, the logical table being comprised of rows and columns, the rows corresponding to records, the columns corresponding to fields or attributes, the logical table being capable of storing different kinds of records.

2. Assign each row and column an object identification number (OID) that, when stored as data, can act as a pointer to the associated row or column and that can be of variable length between databases.

3. For each column, store information about that column in one or more rows, rendering the table self-referential, the appending, to the logical table, of new columns that are available for immediate use being possible through the creation of new column definition records.

4. In one or more cells defined by the intersection of the rows and columns, store and access data, which can include structured data, unstructured data, or a pointer to another row.

地方法院認為上面這個演算法涉及 "storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table" 這個抽象概念，或者更簡單地，“the concept of organizing information using tabular formats” 這個概念。然而，聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，這樣不受請求項文字限制地廣泛描述請求項只會讓101條的例外吞噬了整個規則：

However, describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.

 (判決文第14頁。紅色我加的。)

聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，本案的請求項並不是指向儲存表格資料的任何型式，而是具體的指向電腦資料庫的自參照式資料表。這體現於請求項17的演算法第三步，其必要性說明書與摘要也都有描述：

Here, the claims are not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database. For claim 17, this is reflected in step three of the “means for configuring” algorithm described above...... The necessity of describing the claims in such a way is underscored by the specification’s emphasis that “the present invention comprises a flexible, self-referential table that stores data.” ’604 patent at Abstract; see also id. at col. 2 ll. 44–46 (“The present invention improves upon prior art information search and retrieval systems by employing a flexible, self-referential table to store data.”).

The specification also teaches that the self-referential table functions differently than conventional database structures......

 (判決文第14頁。斜體字是原文。)

另外，聯邦巡迴上訴法院也不認為發明可以在通用電腦上跑就會毀了請求項。與Alice案與更之前的Versata案不同地，本案的請求項指向一種電腦功能的改良，而不像Alice案跟Versata案是在傳統電腦元件上附加已知的商業操作：

Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims. Unlike the claims at issue in Alice or, more recently in Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which Microsoft alleges to be especially similar to the present case,...... the claims here are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer. In contrast, the claims at issue in Alice and Versata can readily be understood as simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices....

 (判決文第16頁，紅色是我加的。這部分聯邦巡迴上訴法院引了一堆判決先例，有興趣者可以看一下原文。)

聯邦巡迴上訴法院還認為改良處沒有參照到 "硬體" 不會毀了請求項。請注意聯邦巡迴上訴法院說，如果沒有參照到 "硬體" 就毀了請求項，會讓 "機器或轉換測試法 (Machine-or-transformation test) " 回魂，或是創設了軟體專利的類別性排除：

Similarly, that the improvement is not defined by reference to “physical” components does not doom the claims. To hold otherwise risks resurrecting a bright-line machine-or-transformation test, cf. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010) (“The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.’”), or creating a categorical ban on software patents, cf. id. at 603 (“This Court has not indicated that the existence of these well-established exceptions gives the Judiciary carte blanche to impose other limitations that are inconsistent with the text and the statute’s purpose and design.”).

 (判決文第17頁。)

基於以上，本案的請求項適格。

* * *

再整理一下本案的觀念：

1. Alice兩步測試的第一步中，關於軟體專利是否指向抽象概念，是看請求項整體的焦點，是否在特定電腦功能的改善 (比如本案是電腦資料庫的自參照資料表)，還是在只把電腦當成工具的，可當成是抽象概念的流程。
   
2. 不受請求項文字限制，廣泛地描述請求項，只會讓101條的例外吞噬了整個規則。
   
3. 發明 "可以在通用電腦上跑" 不會毀了請求項。
   
4. 發明沒有參照到 "硬體" 也不會毀了請求項。

以上整理僅供大家參考。