Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for i

admin2012-07-11  35

问题     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.
    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 (热烈讨论), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 15 said it would use a case pending (悬而未决的) before it to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. Inre Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal", says Dennis D. Crouch, a patent professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents".
    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 (STT) 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.
    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.
    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.
What is said about the Bilski case in the passage?

选项 A、Its ruling complies with the court decisions.
B、It involves a very big business transaction.
C、It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.
D、It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

答案D

解析 第二段末句提到,It“has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents”.(它有可能消除一整类专利),It指代the Bilski case,由此可知,该案件可能会使商业方法专利被取消,从而改变美国的法律惯例,故答案为[D]。[A]在文中未提及:第二段第三句提到a very big deal是为了说明该案件很重要,并不表示其字面意思“一个很大的交易”,故排除[B];第二段第二句提到the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit要通过Bilski case之前的一个悬而未决的案例来全面审查商业专利方法,由此可见,该案件没有被dismissed(驳回),故排除[C]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/j4vFFFFM
0

最新回复(0)