又是專利適格性：Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics (Fed. Cir., October 17, 2016)

SYNOPSYS, INC. v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir., October 17, 2016)


Synopsys的美國專利第5,530,841號 (請求項第1項，本案的代表請求項)、第5,680,318號 (請求項第32、35、36項)、以及第5,748,488號 (請求項第1、2、8、9項) 與將硬體描述語言 (hardware description language, HDL) 轉換成硬體邏輯電路的技術有關，在北加州地方法院被宣告因不適格而無效，上訴法院確認了地方法院判決。

以下整理幾個觀察重點：

1. 法官為了判這個案子，先搞懂了這個技術，並在判決文中用淺顯易懂的方式解釋。任何負責專利訴訟的法務，都應該要有能力做到這點，否則不適合負責專利訴訟。

2. 法官認為本案的請求項不適格的原因，是請求項指向了 "將邏輯電路的功能描述轉譯成邏輯電路的硬體元件描述" 這個抽象概念，而這個抽象概念是一種心智活動：

But, here, the Asserted Claims are drawn to the abstract idea of: translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit. As detailed above, this translation is a mental process. 

(判決文第23頁)

本案的請求項主張了下圖這個流程：

對熟悉此技術的人而言，這個流程是心智活動 (mental process)，可以用紙跟鉛筆完成。專利的發明人也承認，它們也是在心裡進行這些步驟的：

Although an understanding of logic circuit design is certainly required to perform the steps, the limited, straightforward nature of the steps involved in the claimed method make evident that a skilled artisan could perform the steps mentally. The inventors of the Gregory Patents confirmed this point when they admitted to performing the steps mentally themselves. Summary Judgment Order, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 961, 964.

(判決文第18-19頁)

3. 本案跟Enfish案 (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (這個案子我們整理過)以及McRO案 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)) 的差別，在於Enfish案與McRO案都指向電腦技術的改善，而本案的請求項的文字本身與電腦不相關，不能被歸類於電腦技術的改善：

Synopsys cannot rely on our decisions in Enfish and McRO to support the patentability of the Asserted Claims. In Enfish, we held that claims “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate” to store and retrieve data were not unpatentably abstract. 822 F.3d at 1336.... In McRO, we similarly held that claims that recited “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation” were not directed to an unpatentable abstract idea. 2016 WL 4896481, at *8. ... the Asserted Claims do not involve the use of a computer in any way.... The Asserted Claims thus cannot be characterized as an improvement in computer technology. 

(判決文第21-22頁)


4. 本案跟DDR Holdings案 (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) 以及BASCOM案 (BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) 的差別，在於本案的請求項沒有 "技術解決方案 (technical solution)"：

The Asserted Claims, in contrast to those at issue in DDR Holdings and BASCOM, contain no such technical solution. To the extent the Asserted Claims add anything to the abstract idea (i.e., translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit), it is the use of assignment conditions as an intermediate step in the translation process. 

(判決文第25頁)


* * *


從最近這幾個判決，似乎可以整理出一個簡單結論：

"如果請求項跟解決特定技術問題有關，那麼通過適格性檢驗的機率很高。"

聽起來真的很簡單對嗎？得出這個簡單結論的過程可不簡單喔。我猜美國專利商標局的Guideline又要改了。等他改好再來整理給大家參考。