컴퓨터로 구현되는 발명에 대한 특허적격성 문제는 1970년대 이후로 계속 논란이 되어왔다. 2014년 6월, 미국 연방대법원은 Alice 사건에서 컴퓨터 구현 발명의 특허적격성에 관한 판결을 내리면서 지난 수십 년 동안 이어져 온 논란을 일단락 지었다. Alice 판결이 나오자 미국 특허청과 법원은 특허적격성 요건을 매우 엄격하게 적용하였고, 컴퓨터 구현 발명을 다룬 대부분의 사건에서 특허적격성이 부정되었다. 2014년 12월에 특허적격성을 긍정한 (Alice 이후의) 첫 CAFC 사례로 DDR 판결이 나왔다. 그 후 2016년 5월 Enfish CAFC는 소프트웨어 발명의 특허적격성에 대해 상당히 우호적인 입장을 천명하였다. 이를 기점으로 특허적격성을 긍정하는 일련의 판결들이 나왔다. 이들 CAFC 판례에 따르면, 소프트웨어도 하드웨어와 마찬가지로 특허적격성을 가질 수 있음이 확인되었고, 소프트웨어 청구항에 기능식 청구항 해석 원칙을 적극적으로 적용하는 경향을 보였다. 그리고 추상적 아이디어와 관련한 청구항이 특허적격성을 갖기 위해서는 종래기술에 비추어 ‘컴퓨터 기능성에서의 향상’이 있어야 한다는 것이 판례의 입장이다. 최근 CAFC는 종전에 비해서는 특허적격성의 문턱을 다소 낮추는 경향을 보이지만, 앞으로 좀 더 지켜볼 일이다.
The issue of patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions has been controversial since the 1970s. In June 2014, the U.S. Federal Supreme Court settled the decades-long controversy over patent eligibility through Alice’s decision. When Alice’s ruling came, the U.S.P.T.O. and courts applied the Alice patent eligibility requirement very strictly, and denied patent eligibility in most eligibility cases. The first CAFC case (since Alice) which affirmed patent eligibility was DDR ruling in December 2014. Then, in May 2016, Enfish CAFC declared a very favorable position on patent eligibility for software inventions. From that time on, a series of judgments affirming patent eligibility came out. These CAFC judgments confirmed that software can have patent eligibility as well as hardware can and showed a tendency to actively apply the principle relating to construction of means-plus-function claims to software claims. It is the position of the precedents that the claims related to abstract ideas must have ‘improvement in computer functionality’ beyond prior arts in order to have patent eligibility. Recently, the CAFC tends to somewhat lower the threshold of patent eligibility compared to the past, but it remains to be seen whether such tendency would be settled.
The issue of patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions has been controversial since the 1970s. In June 2014, the U.S. Federal Supreme Court settled the decades-long controversy over patent eligibility through Alice’s decision. When Alice’s ruling came, the U.S.P.T.O. and courts applied the Alice patent eligibility requirement very strictly, and denied patent eligibility in most eligibility cases. The first CAFC case (since Alice) which affirmed patent eligibility was DDR ruling in December 2014. Then, in May 2016, Enfish CAFC declared a very favorable position on patent eligibility for software inventions. From that time on, a series of judgments affirming patent eligibility came out. These CAFC judgments confirmed that software can have patent eligibility as well as hardware can and showed a tendency to actively apply the principle relating to construction of means-plus-function claims to software claims. It is the position of the precedents that the claims related to abstract ideas must have ‘improvement in computer functionality’ beyond prior arts in order to have patent eligibility. Recently, the CAFC tends to somewhat lower the threshold of patent eligibility compared to the past, but it remains to be seen whether such tendency would be settled.
