美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit，CAFC)於2008 年10 月30 日，針對美國專利法第101 條所列之各項專利適格標的中之「程序」類型，作出重要之判決（In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008)，簡稱In reBilski 案或本案）。該判決就「程序」專利採取相當嚴格之認定規則，推翻了過去十年來美國法院所傾向採取之寬鬆政策，引起各界熱烈討論。此判決對各種程序類型發明，例如通訊、軟體、資訊、商業方法等，皆有重大之影響。尤因該判決主張具有專利標的適格之程序類型發明必須限定於特定之機器或裝置，或將一特定物品轉變成為一不同的狀態或物體，故可預見的是許多商業方法將因不限定於特定裝置上實施、或未造成形態轉變而無法取得專利，對產業界影響甚鉅。雖美國聯邦最高法院於2010 年6 月28 日判決推翻了聯邦巡迴上訴法院的見解，但各界對聯邦最高法院之判決褒貶不一，支持聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決者仍大有人在，可預見就此議題，未來仍將持續發酵。有鑑於此，本文針對聯邦巡迴上訴法院及聯邦最高法院之判決加以分析，就該等判決之適法性及妥當性加以分析檢討，並就專利標的適格之判斷提出個人之淺見，以供學界與實務界參考，盼得拋磚引玉，促進各界對此議題之重視。

On October 30, 2008, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States (CAFC) released its decision over In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008) (“In Re Bilski”), in which the court took a stringent position on patentability of a claimed process, in contrast with the US courts’laissez-faire policy over this issue in the past 10 years, inducing fervent discussions from the public. The said decision is expected to have noteworthy impact on patentability of processes, such as communication, software, information and business methods.In particular, it is expected to affect the patentability of business methods and thus the interests of certain industries, as the decision states that a claimed process is patent-eligible only if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing, while quote a number of business methods are not tied to a particular machine, nor do they transform any article into different states or things. The Supreme Court of the United States (the “Supreme Court”) did not stand by the CAFC’s decision and overturned that decision on June 28, 2010. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision is not welcome by all and quite many critics still support the CAFC’s decision,indicating relentless discussions on this subject matter are to come. As such, comments to the decisions are provided in this essay based on legal research into the decision’s legality and appropriateness, in hopes that more attention will be drawn to the patentability of process in both the academic circle and the industry sector.