论文部分内容阅读
自然法则、自然现象与抽象思想不受专利保护是专利制度的一项基本原则。在Mayov.Prometheus案判决中,涉案医疗方法专利仅描述了一项自然法则而未对其范围进行任何限定。美国最高法院判定该专利无效,并再次强调对自然法则本身主张保护的方法权利要求不属于可专利客体。自然法则与可专利方法的界限在于,自然法则之上是否被施加了有意义的限制,从而使发明人不会独占对该法则的所有运用。美国法院重拾“自然法则除外”原则并主动降低“机器或转换”标准对方法专利客体审查的重要性,是为了给新技术环境下的未来科技发展预留空间。对自然法则、抽象思想或科学事实赋予专利保护将抑制科技创新,应考虑通过国家资助或奖励等非专利保护方式鼓励基础科学研究。
Natural law, natural phenomena and abstract ideas without patent protection is a basic principle of the patent system. In the Mayov. Prometheus verdict, the medical patent involved in the case described only a natural law without any limitation of its scope. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that the patent was invalid, and again stressed that the method claim of protection of the law of nature itself was not patentable. The boundary between natural law and patentable law lies in whether there is a meaningful restriction on the laws of nature so that the inventor does not monopolize all the application of that law. The importance of the United States courts regaining the principle of “excluding the laws of nature” and taking the initiative to reduce the examination of method patent objects by the “machine or conversion” standard is to provide room for the future development of science and technology under the new technological environment. Patent protection of laws of nature, abstract ideas or scientific facts will restrain technological innovation. We should consider encouraging basic scientific research through non-patent protection such as state subsidies or rewards.