本文旨在探討美國專利法上商業方法發明專利適格性之相關爭議。美
國專利審查及司法實務就商業方法發明之專利適格性，迭有爭論。此議題
於2008 年 In re Bilski 判決暨其後2010 年 Bilski v. Kappos 再次受矚。美
國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於前者判決中雖未否定「商業方法發明」之專利適格，
惟認應以「機械或轉換判斷標準」作為商業方法發明專利適格性之審查依
據。案經上訴聯邦最高法院，聯邦最高法院除重申並非所有商業方法發明
均不具專利適格之立場，並指出前開「機械或轉換審查標準」並非判斷「商
業方法發明」專利適格的唯一標準。雖此，聯邦最高法院並未進一步於判
決中提出具體的審查標準，日後商業方法發明專利適格性之判斷，仍留有
解釋空間。
經分析前述二則判決（含「多數意見」及「協同意見」）及其他相關司
法實務、評論意見後，本文認為聯邦最高法院雖於 Bilski 判決中否定「所
有商業方法發明均不具專利適格」之主張，惟此立場未來非無變動可能。
又，聯邦最高法院在本案中仍未建立審查商業方法發明專利適格性的明確
標準，致實務上爭議頻仍，此部分應循立法方式解決為宜。另本案判決後，
美國專利審查實務與聯邦巡迴上訴法院仍繼續適用此機械或轉換判斷標準
於商業方法發明，甚至擴及適用於其他方法發明之專利適格判斷，未來如
貫徹此標準，則凡未涉及「特定機械」或「具體有形轉換」之「純粹」方
法發明，恐難於美國獲准專利。就此標準之內涵而言，本文則認為其仍有
不明之處，猶待近一步「細緻化」、「具體化」各該要件之內涵。此外，經
本文比較我國專利實務對於「商業方法發明」之立場，我國專利實務雖於「商業方法發明與電腦軟體技術結合」範圍內肯認「商業方法發明」之專
利適格，惟此立場是否過於侷限，仍有討論空間。又，美國專利實務現正
積極努力建立各類方法發明之專利適格審查標準，其未來發展趨勢如何，
自當密切觀察。

This article examines issues of the patent eligibility of business methods in
the United States. The patent eligibility of business methods has continued to
generate fierce debates in the United State. Controversies over the patent
subject matter have been raised again after the 2008 In re Bilski decision. The
Federal Circuit held in that case that the “machine-or-transformation test” was
the sole test in deciding whether a method is a patentable process. Latter in
Bilski v. Kappo (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a categorical exclusion
of business method patents. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the
“machine-or-transformation test” was not the sole test for patent-eligible subject
matter. The Supreme Court, however, did not introduce a nuanced test on the
patentability of business method or process invention.
After critically reviewing the Bilski case (including the Federal Circuit’s
opinion and the Supreme Court’s majority and concurring opinions) and other
judicial and commentary opinions, the author argues that, while the Supreme
Court rejected a categorical exclusion of business method patents, a change of
this position is not impossible when the Supreme Court revisits this issue in the
recent future. While most members of the U.S. IP community expect the
Supreme Court to articulate a nuanced test, the author contends that Congress
should take the responsibility to establish a uniform framework for
patent-eligible subject matter. Cases subsequent to Bilski suggest that even after
the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision, the Federal Circuit continued to use its
“machine-or-transformation test.” As such, a “pure” business method (meaning
that it does not involve any machine or transformation) may not be patented if
the “machine-or-transformation test” still prevails in American patent law. In
addition, the author argues that the Federal Circuit should further shape the
two-prong “machine-or-transformation test” to make it more precise and
predictable.
Comparatively, Taiwan’s patent law recognizes business method’s
patentability only if the business method is operated by a computer software.
The author argues that Taiwan’s approach to treating business method patents is
likely to be more restrictive than that in the United States. Hence, a revision of this approach is advisable in light of the development of business method patent
law in the United States.