点击上方蓝色字体，关注我们
15
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click" online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski, as the case is known , is "a very big deal", says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court", says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
allocation—分配
scale back—缩减
authorize—授权
eliminate—清除
curb—限制
pool—募集
stake out—标注，宣示
rival—对手
grant—授权，赐予
hedge—躲避
第二段第二句
In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.
本句主干是“the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said…”前面的“in a move…”是状语，里面加了个定语从句“that has…”；后面的“it would use a particular case to…”是宾语从句。
第四段末句
The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
本句主干是“The Federal circuit issued an unusual order”，后面的stating that…作状语，里面加了宾语从句“that the case… and that one issue…”； “it wants to evaluate…”是定语从句修饰issue；最后的“whether it should "reconsider"…”是表语从句。
过去的十年间，数以千计的商业方法获批专利。Amazon.com的“一键式”在线支付系统获批专利。Merrill Lynch公司的财产分配方案得到了法律保护。还有个发明家申报了抬箱子技术的专利。
商业方法专利，自从10年前第一次获批以来，就一直备受争议。。美国联邦巡回上诉法庭称其将援引某项具体案例，对商务方法专利进行广泛重审，这项举措让知识产权律师议论纷纷。众所周知，这个案例是In re Bilski 案件。Missouri大学法学院的Dennis D. Crouch称，此案例“非同小可”，它“有可能会消除一整个专利类别。”
限制申报商务方法专利是巨大的转变， Street Bank案件中做出决议，认定募集共同基金的方法属于专利资产，从而引入了商务方法专利。此项裁定一经做出，商务方法专利申请就出现了爆炸性增长。起初，是一些新兴网络公司对某些在线交易类型争取独占权。后来，越来越多的老牌公司也争先恐后地把类似专利纳入囊中，以防竞争对手占得先机。2005年，IBM在一份法律文书中指出，该公司已经获300多项商务方法专利，尽管连它自己都质疑这种专利授权的法理基础。无独有偶，一些华尔街投资公司尽管在法律案件中反对此项举措，但为求自保，也申报了许多金融产品专利。
Bilski案件涉及到能源市场中一种已经申报的风险规避法。，该院所有的12名法官将共同出席，听审此案，而寻常案件一般仅需三人。此外，还要裁定其是否需要“重审” State Street Bank判决。
在此之前，，缩小了专利持有人的受保护范围。例如，今年四月，首席法官纷纷表示，我们一直以来都支持那些过于明显的“发明”获得专利，这种专利已经泛滥成灾了。Harold C. Wegner是George Washington University法学院的教授，也是专利案件律师。他指出，。”