[특허경영] 특허법 101조는 발명의 성립성에 대한 내용 규정
미국 특허법 101조는 발명의 성립성에 대한 내용을 규정하고 있다. 발명이 특허로 인정을 받을 수 있도록 특허법에서 규정된 형식에 맞도록 특허 명세서가 작성돼야 한다.
ChargePoint Inc. v. Sema Connect Inc. (F.C. 2019)
•FC affirmed and invalidated a patent related to networked charging stations.
•Patent owner argued that the invention improved charging stations by allowing the stations to be managed from a central location, and allowing drivers to locate stations, and allowing users to interact intelligently with the electricity grid.
•Not abstract b/c the invention is tangible and builds a better machine.
•Disagreed with the patent owner.
•Asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of communication over a network to interact with a device connected to the network.
•FC affirmed and analyzed specification:
•“specification also makes clear –by what it states and what it does not –that the invention is the idea of network-controlled charging stations.”
•“the specification never suggests that the charging station itself is improved from a technical perspective.”
•Patent is directed to the idea of communicating over a network applied to electric car charging stations, instead of being directed to an improved charging station.
•Many consider this case to be inconsistent with the new USPTO guidance.
•Claim 1 included numerous physical electrical components, but FC ignored them.
•It may take some time for USPTO and FC to reach an agreement on S101 analysis.
<저작권자 ⓒ 엠아이앤뉴스 무단전재 및 재배포 금지>
많이 본 기사