「圖形用戶(hù)界面」的專(zhuān)利主題適格性

#文章僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Andrew Umlauf律師 及 Yuezhong Feng律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：圖形用戶(hù)界面的專(zhuān)利主題適格性

本文案件中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院認(rèn)為如果“圖形用戶(hù)界面（ graphical user interface）”專(zhuān)利的權(quán)利要求針對(duì)一種特定方式匯總信息，并能夠提高計(jì)算機(jī)功能，則該主題不屬于抽象概念并且符合35 U.S.C. §101專(zhuān)利適格性的要求。

在Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.v. LG Electronics, Inc.一案中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院支持了地區(qū)法院駁回簡(jiǎn)易判決（summary judgement）的裁定，該簡(jiǎn)易判決請(qǐng)求裁定8,713,476 和8,434,020兩項(xiàng)專(zhuān)利中的一些權(quán)利要求在35 U.S.C. §101下指向無(wú)效的專(zhuān)利主題。476專(zhuān)利和020專(zhuān)利相關(guān)的權(quán)利要求指向“顯示圖形用戶(hù)界面。（displaying a graphical user interface）”

聯(lián)邦巡回法院認(rèn)為權(quán)利要求不指向一個(gè)抽象概念。聯(lián)邦巡回法院的理由是“即便匯總信息（summarizing information）的一般性概念在本發(fā)明前的確存在，但本案中的權(quán)利要求針對(duì)一種特定方式（a particular manner）的匯總信息及在電子設(shè)備中顯示該信息?！?br/>

為了支持這一結(jié)論，聯(lián)邦巡回法院對(duì)本案權(quán)利要求主題與一般性概念下的匯總信息進(jìn)行區(qū)分。

法院特別強(qiáng)調(diào)了權(quán)利要求中的限制，該限制要求一種特定的方式存取數(shù)據(jù)與限制顯示數(shù)據(jù)的類(lèi)型。法院還列舉了許多專(zhuān)利出版物的摘錄，摘錄論證了“權(quán)利要求如何針對(duì)計(jì)算機(jī)功能進(jìn)行改進(jìn)，特別是那些小屏幕計(jì)算機(jī)?！狈ㄔ哼M(jìn)一步解釋說(shuō)，本案權(quán)利要求主題可使用戶(hù)能夠查看最相關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)，并通過(guò)多種視圖和窗口提高用戶(hù)導(dǎo)航的速度。

本案的判決相比之前聯(lián)邦法院關(guān)于“圖形用戶(hù)界面”的判決更具分量。在Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.中，聯(lián)邦法院在非判決先例公開(kāi)（non-precedential publication. 注：不具有對(duì)今后判決的約束力）中支持當(dāng)圖形用戶(hù)界面的功能可提高用戶(hù)執(zhí)行任務(wù)的速度和準(zhǔn)確性時(shí)，具有該功能的某些權(quán)利要求符合35 U.S.C. §101對(duì)專(zhuān)利適格性的要求。

本案，聯(lián)邦巡回法院提供了一個(gè)可供作為判決先例的裁決（precedential decision），加入了圖形用戶(hù)界面主題具有35 U.S.C. §101專(zhuān)利適格性的額外例證。

附：英文全文

Subject Matter Eligibility for Graphical User Interfaces

In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying summary judgement that certain claims of two patents, 8,713,476 and 8,434,020, were directed to invalid subject matter under 35U.S.C. §101. The pertinent claims of the '476 and '020 patents are directed to displaying a graphical user interface.

An example claim from the ’476 patent is:

A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.

The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the Federal Circuit reasoned that "[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices."

In support of its decision, the Federal Circuit differentiated the claimed subject matter from the generic idea of summarizing information. The Federal Circuit placed special emphasis on limitations that require a particular manner by which data is accessed and limitations that restrain the type of data displayed. The Federal Circuit also recited numerous excerpts from the patent publications that demonstrate how "the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens." The Federal Circuit further reasoned that the claimed subject matter enables a user to see the most relevant data and improves the speed of the user’s navigation through various views and windows.

This decision is likely to carry more weight than the previous Federal Circuit decision related to graphical user interfaces. In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. (Jan. 18, 2017) the Federal Circuit agreed, in a non-precedential publication, that certain claims with graphical user interface features are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 when the features improve the speed and accuracy by which a user performs a task. With this latest case, the Federal Circuit provides a precedential decision with additional examples of graphical user interface subject matter that are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Andrew Umlauf律師 及 Yuezhong Feng律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專(zhuān)利排行榜（前100名）

2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專(zhuān)利排行榜（前100名）

2017全國(guó)申請(qǐng)人確權(quán)商標(biāo)持有量排名（前100名）

“投稿”請(qǐng)投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶(hù)匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬(wàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶(hù)（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬(wàn)+海外30萬(wàn)）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬(wàn)條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專(zhuān)利資源，通過(guò)媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來(lái)自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://m.globalwellnesspartner.com/”