| dc.contributor | 科管智財所 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 陳秉訓 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chen, Ping-Hsun | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2021-07 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 11-Apr-2022 14:32:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 11-Apr-2022 14:32:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 11-Apr-2022 14:32:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=159124 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank International, when a claim is found directed to a patent-ineligible subject matter, the claim is still patent-eligible if it includes an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit’s case law has indicated that an alleged inventive concept with unconventionality may satisfy step two of the Alice standard. Specifically, this paper demonstrates that the case law suggests a way to prove such unconventionality. That is, a patent specification or a patentee’s complaint must include four topics: (1) prior art technology; (2) how a system executing the claimed invention performs differently from the prior art technology; (3) the benefits derived from the claimed unconventional system; and (4) a specific feature operating differently from the prior art technology. With these factual statements, a patent may survive a patent-ineligibility challenge in a motion to dismiss.\npatent-ineligible subject matter, the claim is still patent-eligible if it includes an\ninventive concept. The Federal Circuit’s case law has indicated that an alleged\ninventive concept with unconventionality may satisfy step two of the Alice standard.\nSpecifically, this paper demonstrates that the case law suggests a way to prove such\nunconventionality. That is, a patent specification or a patentee’s complaint must\ninclude four topics: (1) prior art technology; (2) how a system executing the claimed\ninvention performs differently from the prior art technology; (3) the benefits derived\nfrom the claimed unconventional system; and (4) a specific feature operating\ndifferently from the prior art technology. With these factual statements, a patent\nmay survive a patent-ineligibility challenge in a motion to dismiss. | |
| dc.format.extent | 508429 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law, Vol.20, No.4, pp.331-357 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Patent-eligibility;35 U.S.C. § 101; inventive concept;unconventional;non conventional | |
| dc.title (題名) | Federal Circuit’s Unconventionality Approach to Patent-Ineligibility Challenges in a Motion to Dismiss | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
