没收到验证邮件？请确认邮箱是否正确或 重新发送邮件
#文章仅代表作者观点，未经作者许可，禁止转载，文章不代表IPRdaily立场#
发布：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Andrew Umlauf律师 及 Yuezhong Feng律师
供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所
原标题：图形用户界面的专利主题适格性
本文案件中，联邦巡回法院认为如果“图形用户界面（ graphical user interface）”专利的权利要求针对一种特定方式汇总信息，并能够提高计算机功能，则该主题不属于抽象概念并且符合35 U.S.C. §101专利适格性的要求。
在Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.v. LG Electronics, Inc.一案中，联邦巡回法院支持了地区法院驳回简易判决（summary judgement）的裁定，该简易判决请求裁定8,713,476 和8,434,020两项专利中的一些权利要求在35 U.S.C. §101下指向无效的专利主题。476专利和020专利相关的权利要求指向“显示图形用户界面。（displaying a graphical user interface）”
联邦巡回法院认为权利要求不指向一个抽象概念。联邦巡回法院的理由是“即便汇总信息（summarizing information）的一般性概念在本发明前的确存在，但本案中的权利要求针对一种特定方式（a particular manner）的汇总信息及在电子设备中显示该信息。”
为了支持这一结论，联邦巡回法院对本案权利要求主题与一般性概念下的汇总信息进行区分。
法院特别强调了权利要求中的限制，该限制要求一种特定的方式存取数据与限制显示数据的类型。法院还列举了许多专利出版物的摘录，摘录论证了“权利要求如何针对计算机功能进行改进，特别是那些小屏幕计算机。”法院进一步解释说，本案权利要求主题可使用户能够查看最相关的数据，并通过多种视图和窗口提高用户导航的速度。
本案的判决相比之前联邦法院关于“图形用户界面”的判决更具分量。在Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.中，联邦法院在非判决先例公开（non-precedential publication. 注：不具有对今后判决的约束力）中支持当图形用户界面的功能可提高用户执行任务的速度和准确性时，具有该功能的某些权利要求符合35 U.S.C. §101对专利适格性的要求。
本案，联邦巡回法院提供了一个可供作为判决先例的裁决（precedential decision），加入了图形用户界面主题具有35 U.S.C. §101专利适格性的额外例证。
附：英文全文
Subject Matter Eligibility for Graphical User Interfaces
In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying summary judgement that certain claims of two patents, 8,713,476 and 8,434,020, were directed to invalid subject matter under 35U.S.C. §101. The pertinent claims of the '476 and '020 patents are directed to displaying a graphical user interface.
An example claim from the ’476 patent is:
A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.
The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the Federal Circuit reasoned that "[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices."
In support of its decision, the Federal Circuit differentiated the claimed subject matter from the generic idea of summarizing information. The Federal Circuit placed special emphasis on limitations that require a particular manner by which data is accessed and limitations that restrain the type of data displayed. The Federal Circuit also recited numerous excerpts from the patent publications that demonstrate how "the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens." The Federal Circuit further reasoned that the claimed subject matter enables a user to see the most relevant data and improves the speed of the user’s navigation through various views and windows.
This decision is likely to carry more weight than the previous Federal Circuit decision related to graphical user interfaces. In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. (Jan. 18, 2017) the Federal Circuit agreed, in a non-precedential publication, that certain claims with graphical user interface features are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 when the features improve the speed and accuracy by which a user performs a task. With this latest case, the Federal Circuit provides a precedential decision with additional examples of graphical user interface subject matter that are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
发布：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Andrew Umlauf律师 及 Yuezhong Feng律师
供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所
编辑：IPRdaily赵珍 校对：IPRdaily纵横君
推荐阅读
“投稿”请投邮箱“iprdaily@163.com”
「关于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影响力的知识产权媒体+产业服务平台，致力于连接全球知识产权人，用户汇聚了中国、美国、德国、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司、成长型科技企业IP高管、研发人员、法务、政府机构、律所、事务所、科研院校等全球近50多万产业用户（国内25万+海外30万）；同时拥有近百万条高质量的技术资源+专利资源，通过媒体构建全球知识产权资产信息第一入口。2016年获启赋资本领投和天使汇跟投的Pre-A轮融资。
（英文官网：iprdaily.com 中文官网：iprdaily.cn）
本文来自Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn/”
共发表文章4690篇文章不错，犒劳下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也说两句
- 还可以输入140个字
