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.

在過去的十年，數(shù)以千計(jì)所謂的生意策略的專利被批準(zhǔn)。亞馬遜網(wǎng)站為它的“一點(diǎn)即付”系統(tǒng)申請到了專利。Merrill Lynch讓他的資產(chǎn)壟斷策論得到了合法保護(hù)。一個(gè)發(fā)明家申請了一項(xiàng)舉起盒子的技術(shù)的專利。

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."

現(xiàn)在國家最高專利法院似乎已完全準(zhǔn)備好縮減商業(yè)方法專利的數(shù)量，這些專利自從十年前首次授權(quán)以來一直備受爭議。美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院表示，將會(huì)利用一個(gè)特定案件來對商業(yè)方法專利進(jìn)行廣泛的審查，此舉引起了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師的爭議。密蘇里大學(xué)法學(xué)院的Dennis D. Crouch 表示，“眾所周知，?Bilski案是一個(gè)大事件”。它“有可能消除一整類專利”。

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.

對商業(yè)方法專利的限制將會(huì)迎來戲劇性的轉(zhuǎn)變，這是因?yàn)樵?998年所謂的道富銀行案中，正是聯(lián)邦巡回法院它自己引入了商業(yè)方法專利，并批準(zhǔn)了一項(xiàng)關(guān)于匯集共同資金的專利。這一裁決導(dǎo)致商業(yè)方法專利申請量激增，起初是由新型互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司嘗試爭奪特定類型在線交易的獨(dú)家權(quán)。不久后，有更多已成立的公司加入了申請專利的大軍中，即使這只是作為一種防止對手可能先發(fā)制人的防御策略。到了2005年，IBM在一次法庭申請中提出了超過300項(xiàng)商業(yè)方法專利，盡管它質(zhì)疑授予這些權(quán)利的法律依據(jù)。無獨(dú)有偶，有些華爾街的投資公司也用金融產(chǎn)品專利武裝自己，盡管他們在法庭案件中表明了自己的反對立場。

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.

?Bilski案涉及一項(xiàng)有關(guān)能源市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對沖的專利。聯(lián)邦巡回法院發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)不同尋常的指令，規(guī)定該案將由12名法官共同審理，而不是典型的3人小組，并且它想要評估的一個(gè)問題是是否應(yīng)該“重新考慮”道富銀行案的裁決。

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.

聯(lián)邦巡回法院的行動(dòng)是在最高法院最近做出一系列縮小專利持有人保護(hù)范圍的決定之后采取的。例如去年四月，法官們表示有太多顯而易見的“發(fā)明”專利得到了支持。專利律師和喬治華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授Harold C. Wegner說，聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官正在“對最高法院的反專利趨勢做出回應(yīng)”。

本文主要分析了美國專利法庭“過去十年大量頒發(fā)商業(yè)方法專利，如今則準(zhǔn)備大幅縮減該類專利規(guī)?！钡木薮筠D(zhuǎn)變。

第一段舉例論證介紹過去：大到知名企業(yè)的商業(yè)方法，小到不知名者的生活技能都在過去十年間得到了專利保護(hù)。

第二段表明當(dāng)前態(tài)勢的轉(zhuǎn)變：最高法院準(zhǔn)備從Bilski案入手，縮減商業(yè)方法專利的數(shù)量。

第三四段評述現(xiàn)象：通過追溯商業(yè)方法專利的源起和對待Bilski案的特殊審理方式，表明聯(lián)邦巡回法院當(dāng)前對此類專利態(tài)度的轉(zhuǎn)變。

第五段分析現(xiàn)象產(chǎn)生的原因：順應(yīng)最高法院的反專利趨勢。

做題是注意選項(xiàng)偷梁換柱，正確選項(xiàng)都應(yīng)在文中有所對應(yīng)，而錯(cuò)誤選項(xiàng)往往是將文中表示態(tài)度的詞進(jìn)行了錯(cuò)義的替換。