㐃⥆௻⏬㸸ኚ໬ࡍࡿ࢖ࣀࣦ࢙࢖ࢩࣙࣥ࡜≉チไᗘࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ ࡑࡢ㸰ཎᚩඥƷႆ‫ޒ‬ƴ‫ݣ‬ƢǔСࡇᚨᚘƷࢨ᪪ ᳽‫ ܦ‬Ü഑߸ӏƼ቟‫׎‬ƴƓƚǔǳȳȔȥȸǿȷȗȭǰȩȠƱ
ȓǸȍǹ૾ඥƷཎᚩӧᏡࣱǛ̊ƱƠƯÜMatthias LEISTNER and Manuel KLEINEMENKE㕥ᮌ ᑘᩥ ヂ Ϫ㸬⡿ᅜ࡜Ḣᕞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ㻌᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ㻌㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุỴࡣࠊ≉チἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢၥ㢟࠶ࡿᒎ㛤ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ
࡚ࡁࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡢ⠊ᅖ㸦ϫ࡛ᚋ㏙㸧ࠊ㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࠊヨ㦂┠ⓗࡢ౑⏝ࡢᢠᘚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍㒊ࡣࠊ㞟୰ᆺ᥍ッ⿢ุᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿࠊୖ㏙ࡢၥ㢟࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ≉チἲ㸫ᚑࡗ࡚ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌㸫ࡀ┤㠃ࡍࡿࠊᢏ⾡ࡢᛴ㏿࡞㐍Ṍ࡜ኚ໬ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⃭ࡋࡃ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࢥࣥࣆࣗ
࣮ࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヲࡋࡃぢࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢసᴗࡣࠊ≉チ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡜㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ┦஫స⏝ࢆ᳨ドࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢศ㔝ࡢ㐍ᒎࡀࠊṇ☜࡛Ᏻᐃⓗ࡞≉チἲᨻ⟇࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿேࠎ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᖐ⤖ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࠿ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚ࡃ
ࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⃭ࡋࡃ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ≉チἲࡢࡇࡢศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᒎ㛤࡟ࡘ࠸
㻯㻭㻲㻯 ࡢ㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࡢྲྀᢅ࠸࡟ಀࡿヲ⣽࡞ศᯒ࡟ࡘࡁࠊPetherbridge/Wagner, op. cit.

supra note 31ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㻯㻭㻲㻯 ࡢึᮇࡢ㐍Ṍᛶࡢᢅ࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊAdelman, op. cit. supranote 34, at 989 et seqq. ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࡢṔྐⓗⓎᒎ࡟㛵ࡍࡿໟᣓⓗ࡞᳨ウ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࠊDu Mont, A Non-Obvious Design: Reexamining the Origins of the Design Patent
Standard, 45 Gonz. L. Rev. 531 (2010) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࡚ࠊ㞟୰ᆺ᥍ッ⿢ุᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢไᗘⓗᙺ๭ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ ⡿ᅜ≉チἲ᮲㸦㻟㻡㻌㼁㻚㻿㻚㻯㻚㻌㼲㻝㻜㻝㸧ࡣࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡋࠊࠕ᪂つ࠿ࡘࡁࡓ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊḢᕞἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᒎ㛤ࢆẚ㍑᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⡿࣭Ḣ᭷⏝࡞᪉ἲࠊᶵᲔࠊ〇㐀≀ⱝࡋࡃࡣ⤌ᡂ≀ࠊཪࡣࡑࢀࡽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᪂つ࠿୧ไᗘࡢලయⓗ࡞ᕪ␗ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡘ᭷⏝࡞ᨵⰋࢆⓎ᫂ཪࡣⓎぢࡋࡓ⪅ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≉チ࡟ࡼࡿಖㆤࢆ୚࠼ࡿ᪨

ࢆᐃࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢつᐃࡣࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟ࢆᗈࡃᤊ࠼ࡿ❧ሙࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㻌㻌㸬⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࣭ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢつᐃࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿᗈ࠸⠊ᅖࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢቃ⏺ࡢ⏬ᐃ࡟㈨ࡍ

ࡿࠊุ౛ἲ࡟ࡼࡿ୕ࡘࡢ౛እ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⊃ࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ⏬ᮇⓗ ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲࡣࠊ㛗ᖺ࡟ࢃࡓࡾᮍ

࡞ Diamond v. Chakrabarty ஦௳ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࠊࠕேࡀ๰ࡗ

☜ᐃࡢ≧ែ࡟࠶ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⇕࠸㆟ㄽࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋከࡃࡢㄽ⪅ࡣࠊࡓࠊኴ㝧ࡢୗࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࡶࡢࠖࢆྵࡴ᪨ࢆุ♧ࡋࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬↛ἲ๎ࠊ஦ᴗάືࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ຠ⋡ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ≉チ࡜࠸࠺᤼௚ⓗᶒ฼ࡢ࢖ࣥࢭ

⮬↛⌧㇟ཬࡧᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹ࢔ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ≉チἲࡢୗ࡛ࡣ≉チࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜

ࣥࢸ࢕ࣈࡣ୙せ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ࡓࡿ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡣ࢖ࣀࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ཎ๎ࡢᐇ㝿ⓗᛂ⏝ࡣࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡾ

࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥࢆጉࡆࠊ♫఍࡟ࢥࢫࢺࢆㄢࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊู

ᚓࡿࠋ≉チᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡉࢀࡿࡑࢀࡽࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㛗ࡁ࡟ࡢㄽ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊྠ⛬ᗘࡢ☜ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡀࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ஦ᴗࢃࡓࡾࠊ◊✲⪅ࠊ❧ἲ⪅ཬࡧ⿢ุᡤࡢ㛫࡛㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ✲ᴟ㠃ࡢ࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚Ỵᐃⓗ࡟㔜せ࡞࢚ࣥࢪࣥࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡶ

ⓗ࡞ቃ⏺ࡣ࠸ࡲࡔ᫂☜࡟ᐃࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ≉チἲࡣࠊ⤒῭᝟ໃཬࡧᢏ⾡ࡢࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

ࡢⓎᒎࡢ཮᪉࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ᖖ࡟ኚ໬ࢆᙉ࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ึᮇࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢุỴࡣࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲࡣஜឋႎƴ ≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞


Cf., e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), at 1005 (Mayer, J., dissenting);࠸㸦not patentable per se㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㛗ᖺࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡣࠊ

Biddinger, Limiting the Business Method Patent: A Comparison and Proposed Alignment



of European, Japanese and United States Patent Law, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2523, 2544 et

Revisits Patentable Subject Matter in Ex Parte Bilski, 90 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y

seqq. (2001); Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 Santa Clara

678, 678, 683 (2008); Keeley-Domokos, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Finan-

Computer & High Tech. L.J. 263, 274 et seqq. (2000) [hereinafter: Dreyfuss, Businesscial Group, Inc., 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 153, 167 (1999).

Method Patents]; Melarti, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.:

447 U.S. 303 (1980).

Ought the Mathematical Algorithm and Business Method Exceptions Return to Business asId. at 309.

Usual?, 6 J. Intell. Prop. L. 359, 391 (1999); Raskind, The State Street Bank Decision: TheId. at 309 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.

Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Methods of Doing Business, 10 Fordham

63, 67 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948);

Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 61, 92 et seq. (1999); Schlicher, The Supreme Court, Bilski,

O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853); Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156 (1852)); see also Dia-

and Sensible Limits on Patents, 91 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 523, 531 et seqq. (2009);

mond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).

Sfekas, Controlling Business Method Patents: How the Japanese Standard for PatentingSoftware Could Bring Reasonable Limitations to Business Method Patents in the UnitedStates, 16 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 197, 213 (2007); Xiang, How Wide Should the Gate of࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉チᗇ㛗ᐁࡣࠊࠕ఍ィᖒ⡙ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚≉チࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ͐ἲ

Cf. Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 175 (1852).ࡍ࡛࡟ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊEx parte Abraham, 1868 Comm’r Dec. 59, 59 (Comm’r Pat. 1868)“Technology” Be? Patentability of Business Methods in China, 11 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J.

ࡢ⢭⚄࡟཯ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋSee also United States Credit System Co. v. American

795, 813 (2002).

Credit Indemnity Co., 53 F. 818, 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1893) 㺀㏻ᖖࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫྲྀᘬࡢ᪉ἲࠖࡣ



Cf., e.g., DiMatteo, The New “Problem” of Business Method Patents: The Convergence≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓ .ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭱ึࡢ᥍ッᑂุ

of National Patent Laws and International Internet Transactions, 28 Rutgers Computer &Ỵ࡛࠶ࡿ Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467, 469 (2d Cir. 1908) ࡟

Tech. L.J. 1, 21 et seqq. (2002); Hamilton, Reducing the Patent Incentive: Federal Circuit࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊഐㄽ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕᐇ᪋ᡭẁ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊࣅࢪࢿ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ≉チฟ㢪ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᖺࡢ Gottschalk v.
≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀࡿᇶ‽ࡀᡂ❧ࡋ

Benson ஦௳ุỴ ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊึࡵ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟ

ࡓࠋDiamond v. Diehr ஦௳ุỴࡢᚋࠊ᪂タࡉࢀࡓ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗ

ࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉チἲ᮲ࡢቃ⏺⏬ᐃ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ᩘᏛⓗ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ≉チࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊ≉チἲ᮲㸦㻟㻡㻌࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᖺ௦ཬࡧᖺ௦ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺཪࡣࢥ

㼁㻚㻿㻚㻯㻚㻌㼲㻝㻜㻝㸧୰ࡢ᪉ἲ㸦a process㸧࡟ᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࢀ࡟≉ࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡢ฼⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿྲྀᘬࡢ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉チฟ㢪ࡀฟチࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡜࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒⮬యࡢ⊂༨ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

⌧ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣቑ኱ࡋࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿⓎ᫂ࡀ

㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸᪉ἲࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊ≀ࢆࠗ␗࡞ᢏ⾡ⓗⓎ᫂࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫୖࡢⓎ᫂ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡶࡣ

ࡿ≧ែཪࡣ≀࠘࡟ኚ᥮ࡋࠊኚ໬ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡑࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢ㘽࡜࡞ࡿࠖࡸᐇ㝿ⓗ࡛࡞࠸࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓ

࡜ࡢ⌮⏤࡙ࡅࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋྠุỴࡢ⤖ㄽ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ Parker v. Flook ஦௳ุⓎ᫂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆᑂᰝᐁࡀุ᩿ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞





Ỵ ཬࡧ Diamond v. Diehr ஦௳ุỴ ࡟ࡼࡿ᫂☜໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪉ἲⓎ᫂ࡢ
ࢫ᪉ἲࡢ௙⤌ࡳࠝ⮬యࠞࡣࠊ᭱ࡶᗈࡃゎ㔘ࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᡭἲ an art ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞
࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊᚑࡗ࡚≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ


Cf. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (6th ed., January 1995), available࠸࡜ࡢ❧ሙࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟ࡼࡾᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿⓎ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ௚ࡢⓎ᫂࡟㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡜ྠࡌᐇᐃἲୖࡢせ௳࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ุ࡚᩿ࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ᪉㔪ኚ᭦ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟ࡼࡾᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ≉チࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿ౛ࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿⏕ࡌࠊࡘ࠸࡟ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ࡼࡿ⏬ᮇⓗ࡞ State Street Bank ஦௳ุỴ࡛ᑂᰝࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/mpep_E6R0.htm>, § 706.03(a)㸦ࠕࣅࢪ

State Street Bank ஦௳ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࣉࣥᆺᢞ㈨ಙク㸦mutual fund㸧ࡢࡓࡵࡢࠊ

ࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲࡣࠊ୍ぢ᪉ἲ process or method ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊἲࡢࠝ≉チᑐ㇟࠶ࡿ✀ࡢᢞ㈨ࡢ௙⤌ࡳࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࢹ࣮ࢱฎ⌮ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉ࡢࠞศ㢮࡟ධࡽࡎࠊᣄ⤯ࡋ࡚ࡼ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ ; Grusd, Internet Business Methods: Whatチࢆᢅ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ஦௳࡛ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡢ❧ሙࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊࣅ


Role Does and Should Patent Law Play?, 4 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9, para. 16 (1999). But cf.
Wiese, Death of a Myth: The Patenting of Internet Business Models After State Street Bank,ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࢆබ㛤ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓ᪉ἲࡣࠊᆺࡢෆഃࢆᖖ࡟ィ

4 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 17, 31 et seq. (2000) Hotel Security Checking ஦௳ᚋࡶ࡞࠾ࠊࡋࠊࡑࡢィ㻼㼀㻻 ࡣࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࡜ㄆࡵࡿవᆅࡢ࠶ࡿⓎ᫂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚≉チࢆ௜୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍ

ᕤ⛬ࡢ⤊஢᫬࡟ᆺࢆ✵ࡅࡿࡼ࠺ಙྕࢆ㏦ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊᙜヱࡿ .

ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀࠊࡑࢀ⮬య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩘᏛⓗ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᐇ㝿ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆゎỴ

409 U.S. 63 (1972).ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓྜ⾗ᅜ㛵⛯࣭≉チୖッ⿢ุᡤ 㻯㻯㻼㻭 ࡢุId. at 72.Ỵࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓࠋ



Id. at 70.ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠊཪࡣ≀ࢆ࠶ࡿ≧ែ࠿ࡽ௚್ࢆࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟㏦ࡾࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡀຍ◲ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆᖖ࡟᭦᪂ࡋࠊ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ୕ࡘࡢ᭱㧗⿢ุỴࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠕ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ୕㒊స the “patent-eligibilityࡢ≧ែ࡟ኚ᥮ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕせ௳ࢆ඘ࡓࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ᪉ἲⓎ᫂≉チࡣᡂ❧ࡋᚓ࡞࠸ࠖ

trilogy”㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸᪨ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋId. at 71.ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ௳

ุỴࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡀ≉チࢆ୍ษཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

1996, cf. MPEP, 6th ed., Rev. 2 (July 1996), available at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices

E.g. § 706.03(a) MPEP (6th ed., January 1995), cited supra note 101, was deleted in᭷⏝ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ≉ᚩࡀ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡢࡳ࡟࠶ࡿࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆྰᐃࡋ

/pac/mpep/old/mpep_E6R2.htm>.

ࡓ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࠋ

ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢ㐺ษ࡞ᢅ࠸࡟ⱞ៖ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࡜࠸࠺ศ

437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978).ᮏ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ᫂ࡣࠊゐ፹ί໬㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆙ሗቃ

Cf. § 2106 MPEP (7th ed., July 1998)㸦ࠕᙜᗇ⫋ဨࡣࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ

⏺್ࡢ⟬ᐃཬࡧ᭦᪂ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋGottschalk v. Benson ஦௳ࡢᑐ㇟࡜

㢮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ࡟ᚑ

ྠᵝࠊࡇࡢ᪉ἲࡣᐇ㉁ୖᩘᏛⓗ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡗ࡚ࠊ௚ࡢ᪉ἲࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ᢅࢃࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿㺁 .





450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981).ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊྜᡂࢦ࣒ࡢຍ◲࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔

State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡀ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡾᚓ࡞࠸ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹ࢔࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ

チࡢᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⾜ࡗࡓุ᩿ࡀ୙Ᏻᐃ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᢈุࡣ୍ᒙቑ

ࡓᆅ⿢ࡢุ᩿ࢆそࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊࠕᩘᏛⓗ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡣࠊ

ᖜࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࡿᇶ‽ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊึᮇࡢุ

ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹ࢔࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡀࠊ

౛࡟ࡼࡿࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࠊཬࡧ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀᡴࡕ❧࡚ࡓࠊ᭷ຊ࡞ࠕ᭷

࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡀࠕ᭷⏝࡛ලయⓗ࠿ࡘ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞⤖ᯝ㸦a “useful, concrete and⏝࡛ලయⓗ࠿ࡘ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞⤖ᯝࠖࢸࢫࢺ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ᫬ᢡࠊࡉࡽ࡟㏣ຍⓗ࡞ࢸtangible result” 㺁 ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿ

ࢫࢺ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠕᢏ⾡ⓗᡭἲ㸦technological arts㸧ࠖࢸࢫࢺ㸧ࢆࡶุ౛ἲࡀ

᰿ᣐࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ≉チἲୖࡢ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ౛እࠖࡣࠕࡶ

⏕ࡳฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡣࡸ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡞ἲཎ๎࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉チἲࡢ≧ἣ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᢈุࡀ⥅⥆ࡇࡢุỴ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࢆࡉࡽ࡟᫂☜໬ࡋࡓࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢ AT&T Corp. v. Excelࡋࠊቑ኱ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊࠕᅔࡾࡶࡢ㸦mischief㸧ࠖࢆྖἲุ᩿ࡀṇࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡇ

Communications, Inc. ஦௳ุỴࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チ௜࡜࡬ࡢᮇᚅࡀ㧗ࡲࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊState Street Bank ஦௳ุỴ࠿ࡽᖺ௨ୖࡀ

୚ྍ⬟ᛶ࡬ࡢᡬࢆṇᘧ࡟㛤ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チ⤒㐣ࡋࡓᖺ᭶᪥ࠊࡘ࠸࡟ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢ኱ἲᘐ㸦en banc㸧࡟ࡼࡿ⏬ᮇࡢࡓࡵ࡟᪂ࡓ࡟タࡅࡽࢀࡓࠕࢡࣛࢫࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿ≉チฟ㢪ࡀࠊᛴቑⓗ࡞ In re Bilski ஦௳ุỴ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡀᢅࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋྠ

ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࡟ಀࡿ≉チฟ㢪ࡢᛴቑࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ௜୚

஦௳ࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⿦⨨࡜ࡣ≉ẁ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊၟရ

ࡉࢀࡓ≉チࡢ࠺ࡕᴟࡵ࡚ከࡃ࡟㛵ಀࡋࡓၥ㢟㸦୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ≉チྲྀᘬ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᦆኻᅇ㑊ࡢࡓࡵࡢ᪉ἲࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チ࡟ࡢ᪂つᛶཬࡧ㐍Ṍᛶࡢせ௳࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ≉チࡀ⏕ࡳฟࡍ㠀ຠ⋡ⓗ≧ែཬࡧ㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡢᑂᰝᐁࡣࠊᙜヱⓎ᫂ࡀࠕ≉ᐃࡢ⿦⨨࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉チࡢ⸭࡟ࡼࡿ඲యⓗ࡞ࢥࢫࢺ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿᠱᛕ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸧ࡣࠊ㛫ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ༢࡟ࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹ࢔ࢆ᧯సࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢᛂ⏝᪉ከࡃࡢᢈุࢆ㞟ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡀุ౛ἲࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ࡚≉ἲࡢ㝈ᐃ࡞ࡃࠊ⣧⢋࡟ᩘᏛⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊᚑ



ࡗ࡚ࠊࠕᢏ⾡ⓗᡭἲ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ୙᭹⏦❧࡚ࢆཷࡅࡓ



Id. at 1373. Id. at 1375.

ᑂุ㒊㸦The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 㻮㻼㻭㻵 㸧ࡣࠊุ౛ἲ࡟



172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

See, e.g., Bagley, Internet Business Model Patents: Obvious by Analogy, 7 Mich. Tele-᰿ᣐࡢ࡞࠸ࠕᢏ⾡ⓗᡭἲࠖࢸࢫࢺ࡟౫ᣐࡋࡓⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑂᰝᐁࡣㄗࡗ࡚࠸
ࡓ࡜ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ≉ᐃࡢ⿦⨨࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࠕࡶ

comm. Tech. L. Rev. 253 (2001); Dreyfuss, Business Method Patents, op. cit. supra note 94;ࡋࡶ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ᑐ㇟≀ࡀ࠶ࡿ≧ែ࠿ࡽ␗࡞ࡿ≧ែ࡟ኚ᥮ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠖࠊ

Gabay, The Patentability of Electronic Commerce Business Systems in the Aftermath ofࡑࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ㄆࡵࡿవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 8 J.L. & Pol'y 179 (1999);
Hulse, Patentability of Computer Software after State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature

Financial Group, Inc.: Evisceration of the Subject Matter Requirement, 33 U.C. Davis L.

721 (2000); Porter, Should Business Method Patents Continue to be Patentable?, 29 S.U. L.

Rev. 491 (2000); Kang/Snyder, A Practitioner’s Approach to Strategic Enforcement andRev. 225 (2002); Raskind, op. cit. supra note 94; Stern, Scope-of-Protection Problems with

Analysis of Business Method Patents in the Post-State Street Era, 40 IDEA 267 (2000);Patents and Copyrights on Methods of Doing Business, 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media &Keeley-Domokos, op. cit. supra note 95; Makin, Hotel Checking: You Can Check out Any

Ent. L.J. 105 (1999).

Time You Want, but Can You Ever Leave? The Patenting of Business Methods, 24 Col-ࡇࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕ㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㻌㻿㼠㼞㼑㼑㼠 ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ

um.-VLA J.L. & Arts 93 (2000); Melarti, op. cit. supra note 94; North, The U.S. Expansion

Cf. Barich, In re Bilski – Recent Developments in Method Claiming, 2009 U. Ill. J.L.

of Patentable Subject Matter: Creating a Competitive Advantage for Foreign Multinational

Tech. & Pol’y 251, 253.

Companies?, 18 B.U. Int'l L.J. 111 (2000); Ogden, Patentability of Algorithms after State

545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Street Bank: The Death of the Physicality Requirement, 82 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'yId. at 950.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ≉ᐃࡢ⿦⨨ࢆせồࡋࡓⅬࡶㄗࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㻮㻼㻭㻵㻌ࡣࠊ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢྂ࠸ุ౛ἲࡀ㏙࡭ࡓࠕᶵᮏ஦௳ࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ኚ᥮ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ

Ეཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆࠊ᪉ἲࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ≉チἲୖࡢ≉チᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࢆỴ㻮㻼㻭㻵 ࡣࠊฟ㢪ேࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀࡓ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡿᡂᯝࡣࠊ
ࠕ᭷⏝࡛ලయ

ࡵࡿ၏୍㐺ษ࡞ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ෌ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࠕ᪂ࡋ࠸ࠖ஧ᮏ❧࡚ⓗ࠿ࡘ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞⤖ᯝ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼࡞

ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓ᪉ἲࡣࠊ  ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔཪࡣ⿦⨨࡜⤖࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊཪࡣࠊ  ≉ᐃࡢ≀ࢆ␗࡞ࡿ≧ែཪࡣ≀࡟ኚ᥮ࡍࡿ

㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊୖッࢆㄆࡵࠊ࠶ࡿ᪉ἲࡀ≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡓࡵ

ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ᮲ࡢୗ࡛☜ᐇ࡟≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢸࢫࢺࡢ࡝ࢀࡀ㐺ษ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿࡣࠊࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ

ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ␗࡞ࡿࢸࢫࢺࡢṔྐࢆ᣺ࡾၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀࡓ≉ᐃࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊᙜヱ஦᱌࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊ≉㏉ࡾࠊ≉チἲୖࡢ≉チᑐ㇟ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡓࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ␗࡞ࡿ

ᐃࡢᶵᲔࡸ⿦⨨࡟㝈ࡗ࡚㛵ಀࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ≀⌮ⓗࢸࢫࢺࡢᐇ⾜ྍ⬟ᛶཬࡧ᭷⏝ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ

࡞≀ⱝࡋࡃࡣ≀㉁ࡢኚ᥮ࠊཪࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡞≀ⱝࡋࡃࡣ≀㉁ࢆ⾲ࡍ㟁Ẽⓗಙྕࠕ㻲㼞㼑㼑㼙㼍㼚㻙㼃㼍㼘㼠㼑㼞㻙㻭㼎㼑㼘㼑 ࢸࢫࢺ㺁 ࡟ࡘࡁࠊࡇࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ඘ࡓࡉ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ≉ࡶྵࢇ࡛࠾ࡽࡎࠖࠊ༢࡟⢭⚄ⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫཪࡣᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ

チྍ⬟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊㄝᚓⓗ࡛࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌⮬ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊᑂุ㒊ࡢᙜヱࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆᣄ

㌟ࡀ⣙ᖺ๓࡟᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ᪉ἲࡀ᭷⏝࡛ලయⓗ࠿ࡘ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞⤖ᯝࢆࡶ⤯ࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓࠋ

ࡓࡽࡍ᪉ἲ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼࡗุ࡚᩿ࡍࡿࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㻌㻿㼠㼞㼑㼑㼠 ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡟ࡘ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢ In re Bilski ஦௳ุỴࡢᚋࠊ⡿ᅜ≉チἲࡢୗ࡛࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ≉チྍ⬟࠿ྰ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿୖ࡛୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠖ
ࠊࣅࢪࡣࠊ≀ࢆ࠶ࡿ≧ែཪࡣ≀࠿ࡽูࡢ≧ែཪࡣ≀࡟ኚ᥮ࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀᶵ

ࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢุ᩿ᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ୙㐺ษ㸦inadequate㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜Ეࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ᥮ࡋࡓ ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡢᑂᰝᐁࡢ୍㒊࡟ࡼࡾ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓ◊✲⪅ࡢ୍㒊

࠿ࡽࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕᢏ⾡ⓗᡭἲࠖࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୙᫂☜࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ



Id. at 960.

ᮏ 㻯㻭㻲㻯 ุỴࡢᚋࠊࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮏᙜ

ࠕ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࠊᮏ⿢ุᡤཪࡣࡑࡢ๓㌟ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸ
ࢫࢺࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟᥇⏝ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ᫝ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

࡟၏୍ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊㄽதࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓࠋ
Bilski ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⿢㔞ୖ࿌ࡢ⏦❧࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡟ࡘࡁ␲⩏ࢆᥦ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ cf.



Bilski v. Doll, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 2009 WL 226501, at 16 et seqq. ࠋGottschalk



Id.

v. Benson ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࠕ᪉ἲ≉チࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔⱝࡋࡃࡣ⿦⨨࡜



Id.

⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠊཪࡣ≀ⱝࡋࡃࡣᮦᩱࢆࠗ␗࡞ࡿ≧ែⱝࡋࡃࡣ≀࠘࡟ኚ໬ࡉࡏࡿస⏝ࢆᣢࠕ㻲㼞㼑㼑㼙㼍㼚㻙㼃㼍㼘㼠㼑㼞㻙㻭㼎㼑㼘㼑 ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡣࠊྜ⾗ᅜ㛵⛯࣭≉チୖッ⿢ุᡤ 㻯㻭㻲㻯 ࡢ๓ࡓ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙜ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࡑࡢඛ౛ࡢᐃࡵࡓせ௳ࢆ඘㊊㌟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ๓ὀཧ↷ ࡟ࡼࡿࠊᙜヱࢸࢫࢺࢆᙧᡂࡋ⢭⦓໬ࡋࡓḟࡢ୕ࡘࡢࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ᪉ἲࡢ≉チࡣ࠶ࡾᚓ࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ 409 U.S.

ุỴ࡟ᅉࢇ࡛ྡ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋIn re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1978); In re Walter,

63, at 71 ࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ุ᩿ࢆ␃ಖࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋBilski v. Kappos ஦௳࡟

618 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1980); and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982). ࡇࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊ

࠾࠸࡚ࠊୖ࿌ࢆཷࡅࡓ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯 ࡢࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ၏୍ࡢࢸ

᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢ஧ࡘࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋ  ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀࠊGottschalk v. Bensonࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢุ᩿ࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࠋSee infra III. 1.

ุỴࡢ࠸࠺ࠕ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࠖࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤḟ࡟ࠊ Id. at 961.

ࡑࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡣࠕ≀⌮ⓗ࡞せ⣲ཪࡣ᪉ἲࡢ㐣⛬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ap-Id. at 954.

plied in any manner to physical elements or process steps㸧ࠖ࠿ࠋ.



Id. at 964.



Id. at 959.



Id. at 966. ேࡢุ஦ MayerࠊRader ཬࡧ Newman ྛุ஦ ࡀ཯ᑐពぢࢆ㏙࡭࡚Id. at 959 et seq.

࠸ࡿࠋ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸᪉ἲࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙ

ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊྠពぢ࡛ᘬ࠿ࢀࡓ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ஦ྜ࡟㝈ࡾࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ

௳ࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡔࡅ࡟ࠊ୍ᒙ

ࡀ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐣ཤᖺ┠❧ࡘࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠពぢࡣࠊุỴᩥࡢ㡫࡟⮳ࡗ࡚ࠊࡼ࠺ࡸࡃࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌㛫࡟ࠕ㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㻌㻿㼠㼞㼑㼑㼠 ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓከࡃࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡣࠊ

⮬㌟ࡢุ౛࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

In re Bilksi ஦௳ุỴ࡟ࡼࡾ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀ෌ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ

ᖺ  ᭶ࠊBilski ཬࡧඹྠཎ࿌ࡢ Warsaw ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุỴࡢྲྀᾘࡋࢆ

ࣃࢫ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢୖࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊBilski ஦௳ồࡵ࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡟⿢㔞ୖ࿌ࡢ⏦❧࡚ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊᖺ  ᭶࡛᏶඲࡟ゎỴࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊྠุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྲྀ ᪥ࠊࡇࡢ⏦❧࡚ࢆㄆࡵࠊᖺ᭶  ᪥࡟≉チฟ㢪ே㐩ࡢୖッ࡟㛵ࡍࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡣࡎࡢࠊ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㛗ᖺࡢၥ㢟ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ゎỴࡿཱྀ㢌ᘚㄽࡀ㛤࠿ࢀࡓࠋᖺ  ᭶᪥ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ㛗࠸ࡇ࡜ᚅࡓ

ࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊࠕᶵᲔ࡟ࡼࡿᐇ᪋࡜ࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿ

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ Bilski v. Kappos ஦௳ุỴࢆୗࡋࠊIn re Bilski ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ᦆኻ

࠿ࡢṇ☜࡞ᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࡢヲ㏙ࡣᑗ᮶ࡢ஦௳࡟ࠖጤࡡࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ᪉ἲ

ᅇ㑊ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉チฟ㢪ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋࡓ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓࠋ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࣅࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ≉ᐃࡢᶵᲔ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡬ࡢゝཬࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡀ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚≉チᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡘ

ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࡼ࠸ࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㔜ࡘࠊBilski ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀࡓࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹ࢔࡟

せ࡞ၥ㢟ࡀᮍᅇ⟅ࡢࡲࡲṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗ពእ࡟ࡶࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢ Bilski ஦௳ุỴࡣࠊྠ⿢ุᡤࡢ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡟ᑐࡍࡿ

⿢ࡣࠊIn re Bilski ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุ᩿࡟඲㠃ⓗ࡟ྠពࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ

ጼໃࠊཬࡧ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢุ౛࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢኚ໬ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡞࠸ࠋ≉チἲ᮲ࡢᩥゝ୪ࡧ࡟᭱㧗⿢⮬㌟ࡢ Gottschalk v. Benson ஦௳ุMichel ุ஦ࡢᡭ࡟࡞ࡿከᩘពぢࡣࠊከࡃࡢ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ุ౛ࢆヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡋࠊࠕᶵᲔỴཬࡧ Parker v. Flook ஦௳ุỴࡢゎ㔘࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⮬㌟ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢸࢫࢺࢆࠊࠕ᭱㧗⿢ࡢ


In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, at 959 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

ᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㻾㼍㼐㼑㼞 ุ஦ࡣࡑࡢ཯ᑐពぢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊከᩘពぢࡀࠕ㐣ཤࡢᢏ⾡ࢆᢅࡗࡓࠊከᩘࡢ᭱㧗⿢ࡢពぢ࠿ࡽࠊ⬦⤡࡞ࡃᘬ࠸࡚ࡁࡓഐㄽࠖ࡟౫ᣐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᢈ

Id. at 962.཯ᑐពぢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊNewman ุ஦࡜ Rader ุ஦ࡣࠊከᩘពぢࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬࢆྵࡴ㞴ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࢆฟࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅼࢆᢈุࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCf. id. at 1010 (Newman, J.,ุࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋId. at 1011 (Rader, J., dissenting).

dissenting):ࠕከᩘពぢࡣࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ≉チせ௳ࡢ⸭࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭱ࡶᲲࡢ࠶ࡿ 㞴ࡋ࠸ ၥSee <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/060109zor.pdf>.

㢟ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୕ࡘ࡟⟅࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡣᘬࡁ⥆ࡁㄆࡵཱྀ㢌ᘚㄽ࡛ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢグ㘓࡟ࡘࡁḟࢆཧ↷ࠋSee <http://www.supremecourtus.

ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ  ᪉ἲࢆ≉チྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࠊ≀⌮ⓗኚ᥮ཪࡣᶵᲔ࡟ࡼࡿᐇ᪋࡜ㄆࡵࡽ

gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf>.ࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊఱࡀᚲせ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚  ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ཬࡧࢥࣥࣆࣗ



Bilski et al. v. Kappos, Docket No. 08-964, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡾᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿ᪉ἲࡣࠊ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛≉チᑐ㇟࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊStevens ุ஦ࡀ㉳ⲡࡋࠊBreyerࠊGinsburg ཬࡧ Sotomayor ྛุ஦ࡀྠㄪࡋ

ࡿ㹿㺁; and id. at 1015 (Rader, J., dissenting).㻯㻭㻲㻯 ࡣࠊุ౛ᢈホ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ

ࡓ⿵㊊ពぢࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟ࡢ⠊ᅖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊៅ㔜࡞ࠊᩥゝゎ㔘ࠊṔྐศᯒཬࡧ㔜せ࡞ၥ㢟࡟⟅࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCf., e.g., Barich, In re Bilski –ᶵ⬟ⓗศᯒࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋStevens ุ஦࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊከᩘពぢࡣࠕ᪉ἲ proecess㸧ࠖRecent Developments in Method Claiming, 2009 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y 251, 261; Do-࡜࠸࠺ᩥゝࢆᗈࡃゎࡋࡍࡂ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡣఏ⤫ⓗ࡟⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉チྍ⬟noghue/Grill, In re Bilski: A Midpoint in the Evolution of Business Method Patents?, 7 Nw.

࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ

J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 316, paras. 26 et seq. (2009); McEniery, The Federal Circuit in࠺࡟ࠊStevens ุ஦ࡣࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ከᩘពぢ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡣ

Bilski: The Machine-or-Transformation Test, 91 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 253, 261,

࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆྰᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCf. Bilski v. Kappos, No.

263 et seqq. (2009); Ocksrider, Patentability of Computer Software and Business Methods

08-964, slip op. at 47 (Stevens, J., concurring).

Post Bilski: A New Hope, 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 179, 198 et seqq. (2009). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

409 U.S. 63 (1972). Cf. supra III. 1.

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆỴࡵࡿ၏୍ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢ

࣮࣒ࡶࠊูࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉チྍ⬟࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㏆࠸ᑗ᮶ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุ᩿ࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࠋከᩘពぢࡣࠊྠࢸࢫࢺࡀࠊࠕࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࠊඛ

㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀࠊ≉チἲࡢࡇࡢศ㔝࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚ᒙࡢ᫂☜໬ࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆᣢࡘ

➃ⓗデ᩿་Ꮫᡭἲࠊ୪ࡧ࡟⥺ᙧࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠊࢹ࣮ࢱᅽ⦰ཬࡧࢹࢪࢱࣝಙྕ

ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊBilski ஦௳ุỴࡢᙜ᪥ࠊデ᩿ࢸ᧯స࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃⓎ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୙☜ᐇᛶࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠖ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ

ࢫࢺ࡜἞⒪᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀᢅࡗࡓ஧ࡘࡢ஦௳ࠊࡍ

࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ᝟ሗ໬ࡢ᫬௦࡟࠾࠸࡚࠶ࡿ✀ࡢⓎ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆุ᩿ࡍ

࡞ࢃࡕ Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec࡜ Prometheus Labora-ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭱㧗⿢

tories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⿢㔞ୖ࿌⏦❧࡚ࢆཷࡅࡣࠊࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ᏶඲࡟ྰᐃࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྠࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊ

ධࢀࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุỴࢆ┤ࡕ࡟၏୍ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓⓎ᫂ࡀ᮲ࡢ

ྲྀࡾᾘࡋࠊ᭱㧗⿢ࡢ Bilski ஦௳ุỴ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚෌ᑂ⌮ࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ୧஦௳

ࠗ᪉ἲ࠘࡟ᙜࡓࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊ᭷⏝࡛㔜せ࡞୍ࡘࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࠊ

ࢆᕪࡋᡠࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢ஦௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ࡼࡿ෌ᑂ⌮ࡣࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ᳨ウࡢ୍ᡭẁࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊ᪉ἲ

㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀࠊ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡍࡿ᭱ึࡢᶵ఍࡜࡞ࡾࠊ

ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆᗈࡃᤊ࠼ࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡣ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚᭱㧗⿢ࡀ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ㄆࡵࡓ⮬⏤ᗘࢆ⏕࠿ࡋ࡚ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡢศಀࡿ၏୍ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡘࡘࠊ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࠿ࡽ⮬⏤ᗘࢆ㐣ᗘ㔝࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚ᒙࡢ᫂☜ᛶࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍᶵ఍࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ

࡟ዣ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡇࡢពぢࡣࠊࠕ㐃㑥ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッ௨ୖࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ㞟୰ᆺࡢ≉チ⿢ุᡤไᗘࡣࠊุ౛ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ

⿢ุᡤࡀ㐣ཤ࡟⏝࠸࡚ࡁࡓ᮲ࡢゎ㔘ࢆ᫝ㄆࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ㄞࡲࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࠖ

㆟ㄽࡢవᆅࡀ኱ࡁ࠿ࡗࡓࠕ㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㻌㻿㼠㼞㼑㼑㼠 ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᙜึ࠿ࡽ࠿࡞ࡾ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ≉チἲࡢ┠ⓗࢆᐇ⌧ࡋࠊࡑࡢつᐃ࡟཯ࡋ࡞࠸㝈ᐃࡢᢈุࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡓ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡇࢀࢆṇࡍ㸦ཪࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶᕪ␗

ᇶ‽ࢆ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀ㛤Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆጉࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊỴࡋ࡚ᮃࡲ࡞࠸ࠖ᪨ࢆ᫂ࡽ

໬ࡍࡿ㸧ࡢ࡟ᖺ௨ୖࢆせࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⡿ᅜ≉チἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢯࣇࢺ࢘

࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ࢙࢔ࡸࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋࠊ␲ၥࡢከ࠸ᒎ㛤ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊࢥࢫ

㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ Bilski v. Kappos ஦௳ุỴࡢᚋࠊ⡿ᅜ≉チἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣅࢪࢿ

ࢺࢆⓎ⏕ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ☜࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࢥࢫࢺ࡜ࡣࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊ

ࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡣࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚୙᫂☜࡞≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯ࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡢฟ㢪ࡢࢥࢫࢺࡸ⾜ᨻࡢࢥࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚᪉࡛ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チࡀ௜୚ࡉᑂᰝᐁࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ❧ἲᗓ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁከࡃࡢၥ㢟ࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ␲࠸ࡢవᆅ࡞ࡃ⏕ࡌࡓⴎ⦰ຠᯝ࡟ࡼࡿࢥࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡀࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆྰᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㸦௒ࡸ㸧࠾ࡑࡽࡃ↓ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠊከᩘࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ≉チ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡜ࠊཬࡧࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ၏୍ࡢࢸ

㆙࿌ࡸᕪṆㄳồࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㏣ຍⓗ࡞࠿࡞ࡾࡢཌ⏕ᦆኻࡀⓎ⏕ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡣ࡞ࡗࡓࡀࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ≉チἲ᮲ࡢ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ Bilski ஦௳ุỴࡢᚋࡶ࡞࠾ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉

ୗ࡛≉チྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢࡣ୍యఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᡭᘬࡁ࡜࡞

ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚୙᫂☜࡞≧ែࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࢥࢫࢺ࡜

ࡿࡶࡢࢆ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝♧ࡉ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢᇶ‽ࢆ඘ࡓࡍ㏣ຍⓗཌ⏕ᦆኻࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ⥆ࡅࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ≉チྍ⬟࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡉ࡚ࠊ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡜ࠊḢᕞࡢ≉チἲࡢἲⓗ≧ἣࢆẚ࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊୖグ᭱㧗⿢ุỴᚋࡣࠊࠕᶵᲔཪࡣኚ᥮ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ඘ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ࢡࣞ

ࡼ࠺ࠋᚋ⪅ࡣࠊ㞟୰ⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ศᩓⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡀ」㞧࡟స⏝ࡋ࠶࠺Ⅼ࡟≉





437 U.S. 584 (1978). Cf. supra III. 1.

304 Fed. Appx. 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, slip op. at 9.

581 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009).



Id., slip op. at 8.

Cf. Supreme Court Orders No. 08-1509 and No. 09-490 of Tuesday, 29 June 2010,Id., slip op. at 16.available at <http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062910zr.pdf>. ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ᚩࢆᣢࡘࠊ᰿ᮏⓗ࡟␗࡞ࡿไᗘⓗ࡞ࣇ࣮࣒࣮ࣞ࣡ࢡࡢ୰࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ

࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿィ⟬ᶵ⏝ࡢᵓᡂ࣭ィ⟬ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᐇ⾜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

᪤▱ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘィ⟬ᶵࢆ࿨௧࡝࠾ࡾ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ

࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⾜ྍ⬟࡞ᵓᡂ࡜ィ⟬㻌㻌㸬Ḣᕞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲ࣭ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆࡍࡿ࣮ࣝࣝ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡞ࡐᢏ⾡ⓗⓎ᫂࡜࠸࠼࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ≉チฟ㢪ࡀᢏ⾡ⓗⓎ᫂࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ Ḣᕞࡢ≉チไᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⌧⾜ࡢศᩓⓗ㸦decentralized㸧࡞≉チ࢚ࣥࣇ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ

࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࡢไᗘࡀࠊከࡃࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ␲࠸࡞࠸

᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓ

࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ୺㢟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ ࠋࡑⓎ᫂ࡢࠕ୰᰾ࠖ㸦core㸧ࡀᢏ⾡ศ㔝࡟ᒓࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳࠊⓎ᫂ࡣࠕᢏ⾡ⓗࡢ௦ࢃࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢไᗘࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢ≉チッゴไᗘࡢ㛗ᡤ㸦technical㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

࡜▷ᡤࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊḢᕞࡢศᩓⓗ࡞ไᗘࡀࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢࣛ ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽᖺᚋࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢᑂุ㒊ࡀึࡵ࡚ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㛵㐃Ⓨ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ࣒࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᢅࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࠿ࢆᴫほ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢฎ⌮ࡢ㎿㏿໬࡜࠸࠺ㄢ㢟ࡢゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࠊศᩓⓗ࡞ᡭ⥆࠿ࡽᡂࡿไᗘࡶࠊ୍ᐃࡢ㛗Ỵ⟇ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ≉ᡤࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⌮᝿ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢไᗘࡢୗ

チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࠊⓎ᫂ࡢᇶᗏࢆ࡞ࡍᛮ᝿㸦࢔࢖࡛ࠊ㻱㻼㻻 ࡢᑂุ㒊ࡸ␗࡞ࡿἲᇦࡢᅜෆ⿢ุᡤ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ

ࢹ࢔㸧ࡀࠊᩘᏛⓗ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࡢホ౯ࡣ⥲⿢ุᡤ㸧ࡢࠊศ⿣ࡋᦂࢀືࡃุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓࠕࢳ

ྜⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽ⾜࠺࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙜヱᩘᏛⓗ᪉ἲࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᢏ⾡ⓗ㐣⛬࢙ࢵࢡ࣭࢔ࣥࢻ࣭ࣂࣛࣥࢫࠖࡢ௙⤌ࡳࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋᚓࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࢡ࣮࣒࡛ࣞ࠶ࢀࡤࠊᙜヱ᪉ἲࡑࢀ⮬యࡢಖㆤࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ࡛ 㻱㻼㻯㻌ࡢ᮲ 

F ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࠕࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ᪉ἲࠖཬࡧࠕࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡢ

ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢᑂỴࡣࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ฎ⌮ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠖࡣࠊⓎ᫂࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡎࠊᚑࡗ࡚≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ୍⯡࡟ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡀ᪤▱ࡢᆺࡢࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࠊᙜヱࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡣࠊ

㝖࠿ࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊୖグࡢ㝖እࡣࠊḢᕞ≉チࡢฟ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡀᐃࡵࡿᢏ⾡Ỉ‽ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ㒊ศ㸦forming part of the state of㢪ཪࡣḢᕞ≉チࡀࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡸࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠕࡑࢀ⮬యࠖ

the art㸧࡜ㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢᑂỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂ

㸦as such㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻱㻼㻯㻌ࡀⓎຠࡋࡓุ㒊ࡣࠊᩥ᭩ࢆせ⣙ࡋࠊせ⣙ࢆಖᏑࡋࠊၥ࠸ྜࢃࡏ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚せ⣙ࢆ᳨⣴ࡍᖺ௨㝆ࠊࡇࡢࠕࡑࢀ⮬యࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥゝࡢゎ㔘࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࡘࡘࠊ◊✲⪅ࠊ

ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࠊ⢭⚄ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢ㐙⾜࡟㛵ࡍࡿィ⏬ࠊἲ๎ཬࡧ᪉ἲ࡜

ᑂᰝᐁཬࡧ⿢ุᡤࡢ㛫࡛ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㛵㐃Ⓨ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆᕠࡿ⃭ࡋ࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ྵࡲࢀࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌 ᮲ F ཬࡧ᮲  ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࠸㆟ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

≉チࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋࡇࡢᑂỴࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ཬࡧ ࡼࡃᘬ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠊᖺ࡟ฟࡉࢀࡓࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟㛵ࡍ᮲  ࡢୗ࡛ࠊ
ࠕࡑࢀ⮬యࠖࡀ≉チࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿάືࡢ

ࡿ᭱ึࡢุỴ ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ㓄⨨ࢆỴࡵࡿసᴗ



tionsprogramm.

ศᩓᆺࡢḢᕞࡢ≉チ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺไᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⡆₩࡞ㄝ᫂࡜ࡇࡢไᗘ



Cf. id. at 99.ⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡢᴫほ࡟ࡘࡁࠊḟࢆཧ↷ࠋSee supra I., and, e.g., Cannon, op.

Cf. id. at 98 et seq.

cit. supra note 6, at 417 et seqq.; Pegram, An American View of the Patent System in Eu-EPO Board of Appeal of July 15, 1986, T 208/84 – Computer-related invention/Vicom.rope in 2009, 91 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 594 (2009).



EPO Board of Appeal of October 5, 1988, T 22/85 – Document abstracting and retriev-



ing/IBM.

Federal Court of Justice of 22 June 1976, X ZB 23/74, (1976) GRUR, 96 – Disposi- ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 㐙⾜㐣⛬ࢆ㡰࡟୪࡭ࡓࡔࡅࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊࣁ࣮ࢻ࢙࢘࢔࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᬑ㏻ࡢࢥࣥࣆ

ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡟ࡼࡾᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡿⓎ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࣮ࣗࢱࡢຓࡅࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟ཪࡣᶵ⬟ⓗᡭẁࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚

୍࡚ᒙ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋᩥࡢᩥἲᵓ㐀ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࢥࣥࣆࣗ

ࡶࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞ᕤኵ㸦technical considerations㸧ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ

࣮ࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ≉チᗇཬࡧ㐃㑥≉チ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᢏ⾡ᛶࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡽࡎࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢάື࡟ᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟࠿ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚≉チ࡟ࡼࡿಖㆤࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊୖッࢆཷࡅࡓ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ

ࡽࡢ㝖እࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᢏ⾡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᐃࡢ᪉ᘧ࡟⎔ቃタᐃࡉࢀࡓ⿦⨨ࡣࠊ ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊ᭷ྡ࡞ Tauchcomputer ஦௳୍ุ⯡࡟ᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⿦⨨ࡢᢏ⾡ⓗᛶỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪂つᛶ࡜㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࡢᑂᰝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢぢゎࢆኚ࠼࡚ࠊ㉁ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ࡟㝿ࡋࠊࠕࡼࡾ㧗࠸ࠖᢏ⾡ⓗຠᯝࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࡢᢏ⾡Ⓨ᫂ࡢࠕ୰᰾ࠖࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢࡼࡾ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ᚑ

ศ㔝ࡀࡼࡾ㇏࠿࡟࡞ࡿ㸦enriched㸧࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᢏ⾡Ỉ‽࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࠿ࡣࡗࡓࠊ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡍࡿ❧ሙ࡟㌿᥮ࡋࡓࠋྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᢏ⾡ⓗせ⣲࡜㠀ᢏၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡓࠋ⾡ⓗせ⣲࡜ࢆྵࡴⓎ᫂ࡣࠊᑂᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ྠࡌᖺࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆ㏕ࡽࡾࠊ㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗせ⣲ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸࡚ࡶ≉チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡢ

ࢀࡓࠋPension Benefit Systems Partnership ஦௳ᑂỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋࡇࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ホ౯ᇶ‽ࡢୗ࡛ࠊᚋ࡟⥆࠸ࡓุỴ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ⤒῭࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡜ࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ័⾜ࡢࡳ࠿ࡽᡂࡿ᪉ἲࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯᮲  ࡢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡣḟ➨࡟ᣑ኱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

ᐃࡵࡿⓎ࡛᫂ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⣧⢋࡟㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵࠊཬࡧ㸭ཪࡣ⣧ ࡉࡽ࡟  ᖺᚋࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ⏬ᮇⓗ࡞ Computer program product/IBM ஦⢋࡟㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࡢฎ⌮ࡢࡓࡵࡢᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡣࠊ௳ᑂỴ ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠ㒊ࡢ㐣ཤࡢ」ᩘࡢᑂỴࡀ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓぢゎ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡑࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙜヱ᪉ἲ࡟ᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ

࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ᥇ࡗࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㐣ཤࡢᑂỴ࡛ࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭

࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ྠᑂỴࡣࠊ⤒῭ⓗάືࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ࠿ཪࡣ

ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣ 㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  F ཬࡧྠ᮲  ࡢୗ࡛≉チᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡉࢀᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࡢ࡟㐺ࡋࡓࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞≀ཪࡣලయⓗ࡞〇ရ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ⿦

࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊୖグᑂỴࡣࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗ

⨨ࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡢᐃࡵࡿⓎ᫂࡟ᙜࡓࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

ࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡑࢀ࡜ࢆ༊ูࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑂุ㒊㻱㻼㻯㻌ࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿⓎ᫂ࡀ 㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡢᐃࡵࡿព࿡࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ᫂࡜ㄆࡵࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ〇ရࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱୖ࡛ᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡽࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡢ᳨ウ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⓎ᫂ࡢࠕ᪂つᛶࢆᣢࡘ≉ᚩࠖ࡜ඛ⾜ᢏ⾡࠿ࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸦ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔㸧࡜ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㸦ࣁ࣮ࢻ࢙࢘࢔㸧ࡽ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ᚩ࡜ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿ⌮⏤ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ࡢ㛫ࡢࠕ㏻ᖖࡢࠖ≀⌮ⓗ┦஫స⏝ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿᢏ⾡ⓗຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㻱㻼㻻 ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊᖺࡢ⏬ᮇⓗ࡞ Auction Method/Hitachi ஦௳F ཬࡧྠ᮲  ࡢୗ࡛≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜

ᑂỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛཪࡣࣅࢪࢿࢫ᪉ἲࢆྵࡴࠊࢡࣞ

ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊSprachanalyseeinrichtung ஦௳㸦inventive step㸧ࠖࡢၥ㢟࡟ࢩࣇࢺࡉࡏࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ࡋࡓࠋ

࣮࣒ࡉࢀࡓⓎ᫂ࡢᑂᰝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↔Ⅼࢆࠊࠕᢏ⾡ᛶࠖࡢၥ㢟࠿ࡽࠕ㐍Ṍᛶ



Federal Court of Justice of 4 February 1992, X ZR 43/91, (1992) GRUR, 430 – Tauch-Federal Court of Justice of 11 May 2000, X ZB 15/98, (2000) GRUR, 1007 – Spra-chanalyseeinrichtung.

computer.

Id. at 1008.



Id. at 431 et seq.



Id.



EPO Board of Appeal of July 1, 1998, T 1173/97 – Computer program product/IBM.

EPO Board of Appeal of September 8, 2000, T 931/95 – Pension Benefit Systems Part-Cf. id., headnote 1.

nership.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ᛶࡢ᳨ウࡢ୰࡛⿦⨨ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜᪉ἲࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜ࢆྠิ࡟ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡾࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ᪨ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋᢏ⾡ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊᮏᑂỴ࡛ࠊ௨๓ࡢ Pension Benefit Systems Partnership ᑂỴ࡜ࡣ

ⓗᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡿᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ࡜ࡣࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢኚ᭦ࡸࠊࡑࢀ

ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁࢆྵࡴ᪉ἲࡶ 㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  ࡢⓎ࡛᫂࠶ࡾࠊࢧ࣮ࣂ࣭

ࡽࢆ࿧ࡧฟࡍ㸦address㸧᪂ࡋ࠸᪉ἲࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᚲࡎࡋࡶせࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢࡳ࠿ࡽࠊ᪉ἲࡀᢏ⾡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵ

ྠ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ

ᚓࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏᑂỴ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ஦ᴗィ⏬㸦a business scheme㸧ࡢ࣒ࣛࡢᐇ⾜ࡀࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱእࡢᢏ⾡ⓗ᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠿ࠊ࠶

ኚ᭦࠿ࡽᡂࡾࠊᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࢆᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑ

ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡢᢏ⾡ⓗ᮲௳ࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡘࡘ⾜ࡗࡓࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ㛤ࢀࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ≺ࡗࡓ᪉ἲࡢᡭ㡰ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᑐ㇟ࡢ㐍Ṍᛶ࡟ᐤ୚Ⓨ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࡀゎỴࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛㊊ࡾࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡓࠋᢏ⾡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗ≉ᚩࡀΰᅾࡍࡿⓎ᫂ࡢホ౯࡟ᙜࡓᢏ⾡ᛶࡢุᐃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓⓎ᫂ࡀᢏ⾡ⓗ≉ᚩࡢ࡯࠿࡟㠀ᢏ⾡ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿ㠃ࡢ≉ᚩࡢࡳࡀࠊ㐍Ṍᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿホ౯࡟࠾ⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᢏ⾡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜㠀ᢏ⾡ⓗ≉ᚩࡀ࠸࡚⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱୖ࡛ࡢࡳᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿࠊ༢࡞ࡿᴫᛕ

ేᏑࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ≉ᚩࡢࡳࡀ⪃៖ࡉࢀࠊⓗ࡞ࣞࢪ࣮࣒ࡸ᪉ἲࡣࠊ㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࢆ඘㊊ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᘬࡁ⥆ࡁࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡢ᪂つᛶཬࡧ㐍Ṍᛶࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ≉チྍ⬟ᛶࡀỴࡲࡿࠋ≉チࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ୍ᐃࡢែᵝ࡛ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࢆഛ࠼ࡓࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᢏ ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊSuche fehlerhafter Zeichenketten⾡ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣࠊᙜヱࣉ஦௳ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チᑐ㇟࠿ࡽࡢ㝖እ࡟ࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡿලయⓗ࡞ᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࡢゎỴἲࡀ᪂つ࡛㐍Ṍ㛵ࡍࡿゎ㔘ࢆ᫂☜໬ࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆᚓࡓࠋྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓⓎ᫂ࡀᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ≉チࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ ᭱㏆ࠊᖺ  ᭶᪥࡟ࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊㸦㻱㻮㼛㻭㸧ࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢ Alisonࡋࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡢᚑ᮶࡝࠾ࡾࡢ฼⏝ࡢࡳ࡛ࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ≉チἲ PatG  ᮲Brimelow 㛗ᐁ࠿ࡽ௜クࡉࢀࡓ  ࡘࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊពぢࢆබ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࡑ ཬࡧ   ࡀᐃࡵࡿࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チᑐ㇟࠿ࡽࡢ㝖እࢆ

ࡢ㉁ၥࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌ࡢୗ࡛ࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑂุ㒊ࡀ⾜ࡗࡓࠊᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡢ࡟༑ศ࡛࡞ࡃ ࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡉࢀࡓⓎ᫂࡟≉᭷ࡢせ⣲ࡀࠊලయⓗ┦஫࡟㣗࠸㐪࠺㸦࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀࡿ㸧ุ᩿࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ௜ク࡞ᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ㉁ၥࡀࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 㻱㻼㻻㻌 ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ಀࡿ᭱᪂ࡢุ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ

ࡢᐇົ඲యࡢ᳨ウࢆồࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ኱ࡁ࡞㛵ᚰࢆ࿧ࢇࡔࠋ

ࢻ࢖ࢶ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀࠊ༢࡟ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗ

ࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊᘚㆤኈࠊ௻ᴗࠊᏛ⏺ࠊ≉チ஦ົᡤཬࡧಶே࠿ࡽࠊࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࢱࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞ᢏ⾡ⓗၥ㢟



EPO Board of Appeal of April 21, 2004, T 258/03 – Auction Method/Hitachi.

Steuerungseinrichtung für Untersuchungsmodalitäten; Federal Court of Justice of 20 April

EPO Board of Appeal of September 8, 2000, T 931/95 – Pension Benefit Systems Part-

2010, X ZR 27/07; Federal Court of Justice of 22 April 2010, Xa ZB 20/08, (2010) GRUR,Cf. Federal Court of Justice of 20 January 2009, X ZB 22/07, (2009) GRUR, 479 –nership.

613 – Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung.





Cf. Federal Court of Justice, (2010) GRUR, 613, at 616.

fehlerhafter Zeichenketten.

Cf. Federal Court of Justice, (2010) GRUR, 613, at 615.





Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office of May 12, 2010, Case No.

Federal Court of Justice of 17 October 2001, X ZB 16/00, (2002) GRUR, 143 – Sucheࢻ࢖ࢶ≉チἲ  ᮲  ཬࡧ  ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡢ 㻱㻼㻯 ᮲  ཬࡧ  ࡜ྠᵝࡢつᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

G 3/08 – Programs for Computers. Cf. Federal Court of Justice, (2002) GRUR, 143, at 144 et seq.





Id. at 144.

October 2008, Official Journal EPO 2009, 142.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

Cf. Referral by the President of the EPO to the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 23▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ពぢ᭩㸦amicus curiae briefs㸧ࡀᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓࠋ᢬ゐ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃṇᙜ࡞Ⓨᒎᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲  E

 ᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡢពぢࡣࠊึࡵ࡟ࠊ௜クࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆࡢ┠ⓗ࣭㊃᪨ࡣࠊἲࡢ⤫୍ᛶ㸦legal uniformity㸧ࡀ஘ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࠊᣑ኱

ㄽࡌࡓࠋ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲ 

E ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊἲࡢ⤫୍ⓗ࡞㐺⏝ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿᚲせࡀᑂุ㒊ࡀࡇࢀࢆ෌ᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡾࠊἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡀ௓ධࡍࡿ

࠶ࡾࠊཪࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡞㔜せᛶࢆᣢࡘἲⓗၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ஧ࡘࡢ

ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࠊ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ௳࡛ࡣࠊ᢬ゐࡍࡿᑂุ㒊ࡢุ᩿ࡀ࡞࠸

ᑂุ㒊ࡀࡑࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␗࡞ࡿุ᩿㸦ᑂỴ㸧ࢆୗࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌㛗ᐁࡣࠊࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௜ク࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲⓗせ௳ࡀ඘ࡓࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ἲⓗၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊࡟௜クࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ ᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭱㏆ࡢุ౛ἲࡢ

ࡲࡎࠊ๓௵ࡢ Alain Pompidou 㛗ᐁࡀᖺ࡟௜クࢆᣄྰࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸

❧ሙࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ௳࡟

ࡗ࡚ࠊBrimelow ⌧㛗ᐁࡀ௜クࡢᶒ㝈ࢆኻࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡴ

࠾ࡅࡿᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢᐇົ࡟ኚ໬ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡛࠶

ࡋࢁࠊ㛗ᐁࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲ 

E ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⿢㔞ⓗᶒ㝈ࢆ඲㠃ⓗࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡀࠊᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁࢆ࡟⾜౑ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௜クࡢᚲせᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ᩿ࢆẚ㍑ⓗ▷ᮇ㛫ࡢ㛫࡟ኚ㝈ᐃࡋࠊཪࡣ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉ

᭦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋ⥆࠸࡚ࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲ Eࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࠕࡑࢀ⮬యࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚≉チྍ⬟ᛶࢆྰᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡢつᐃ࡟ࡼࡿチᐜྍ⬟ᛶࡢᇶ‽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௒ᅇ௜クࡉࢀࡓࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭᪂つᛶࡸ㐍Ṍᛶࡢホ౯࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᢏ⾡ⓗᛶ㉁࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ≉ᚩࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡀࠊ␲࠸࡞ࡃᇶᮏⓗ㔜せᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜

ࡢࡳࡀ⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻯㻌᮲ 

E ࡢࠕ஧ࡘࡢ 㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂุ ୖグࡢᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣑ኱

㒊࡟ࡼࡿ␗࡞ࡿุ᩿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥゝࡢព࿡࠸࠿ࢇ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᴟࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ㄽⅬᑂุ㒊࡬ࡢ௜クࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㛗ᮇ㛫ࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟ 㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢᑂุ㒊ࡀ␗࡞ࡿุ᩿

ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ㛵㐃ࡍࡿุ౛ἲࡢᒎ㛤ࢆ௘⣽࡟ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࢆฟࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ┿ࡢ᢬ゐ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡇࡢࠝࢥࣥࣆࣗ

ࡣࠊᢏ⾡ᑂุ㒊ࡢ஧ࡘࡢุ᩿㸦ᑂỴ㸧࡟┦㐪Ⅼ㸦a divergence㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆ

࣮ࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ಀࡿࠞἲศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸦₞ḟࡢ㸦piece-meal㸧㸧Ⓨᒎࢆࡵࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ᢏ⾡ศ㔝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ౛ἲࡣࠊᖖ࡟㐃⥆ⓗ࡟Ⓨᒎ཯ᫎࡋࡓ஦᝟࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ௜クࡣࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࢆࡋࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ௨๓࡟᥇⏝ࡉࢀࡓ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀᨺᲠࡉࢀࡓࡾಟṇࡉࢀ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㞟୰໬ࡋࡓࢸࢫࢺࡢ

ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ࡜ࡋࠊᮏ௳࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࡶࠊุ౛ἲࡢ

㐺⏝ࢆ࠶ࡿ᫬ࢆࡶࡗ࡚ไ㝈ࡋࠊᐇ㉁ୖࠊἲⓗᏳᐃᛶ࡜⤫୍ᛶࢆ⌮⏤࡟ࠊࡑ

ࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ୍ᐃᮇ㛫ᅛᐃ໬㸦freeze㸧ࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヨࡳ࡟➼ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛



Cf. Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office of May 12, 2010, G 3/08,

at 1 et seq.
㻱㻼㻯 ᮲  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᑂุ㒊⮬యཬࡧ 㻱㻼㻻 㛗ᐁࡢࡳࡀࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㉁ၥࢆ௜クࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊᑂุ㒊ࡢ௜ク࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣᑂỴ adecision ࢆࠊ㛗ᐁࡢ௜ク࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣពぢ an opinion ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿࠋ

࠶ࡗࡓࠋᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊᑂุ㒊ࡢุ౛ἲࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࡇࡢศ㔝ࡢᢏ⾡ⓗཬࡧἲⓗ㐍ᒎ࡟཯ᛂࡋ࡚ࠊ༊ࠎ࡟㸦࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣ㠀⣔⤫ⓗ࡟㸧Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨᒎࡇࡑࡀࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㛵㐃Ⓨ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓࠊ⏬୍ⓗ࡛࡞࠸㸦differentiated㸧ࠊࡑࡋ࡚࠿࡞ࡾࡢ⛬ᗘಙ㢗࡛ࡁࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࡓࡢ

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office of May 12, 2010, G 3/08, at 4.

Id. at 5.ᐇࡣࠊࡇࡢ௜クࡣࠊ༢୍ࡢᢏ⾡ᑂุ㒊࡟ࡼࡿ␗࡞ࡿ ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀࡓ ᑂỴࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠞၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୍㈏ࡋࡓࠊ⡆᫂࡞ࢸࢫࢺࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࠊࡑࢀࢆᅛ

࡜ࡋ࡚࡞ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᣑ኱ᑂุ㒊ࡣࠊࡇࡢ௜クࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡗࡓᑂỴᐃ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇ㝿࡟ヨࡳࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌࡜ࡑࡢ㸦⌮ㄽୖࡣྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾࢆࡋࡓᑂุ㒊ࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡿᵓᡂ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊྠ௜クࡣ 㻱㻼㻯㻌

᮲ 



Id. at 17.

Id. at 22.E ࡢᩥゝ࡟ᩚྜⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡓࠋCf. Enlarged Board of Appeal of theEuropean Patent Office of May 12, 2010, G 3/08, at 7 et seqq.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠿࠿ࡿ⫼ᬒࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊࠝࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㛵㐃Ⓨ᫂ࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ⊂❧ⓗ࡞㸧ᑂุ㒊ࡢไᗘୖࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ≉ᐃศ㔝࡟࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄗࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⡿ᅜࡢ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡶྠᵝࡢᠱᛕࢆ࠾ࡅࡿ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ㐺ษ࡛ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓせ௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᝟ሗ

ᢪ࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊBilski v. Kappos ஦௳ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᭱

ࡀ㸦㛫㐪࠸࡞ࡃ㸧୙☜ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᛴ㏿࡞㐍ᒎࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ㧗⿢ࡣࠊ≉チྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟ࡢุᐃ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚၏୍ࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡛ࠊ࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡃ࡜ࡣᛮ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢࠕᙧᘧⓗ࡞㸦formal㸧ࠖ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟཯ᑐࡋࠊࡼࡾᰂ㌾ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿḢ㐍ᒎ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶᑐᛂྍ⬟࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ㞟୰ᆺ࡜ศᕞࡢุ౛ἲ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ 㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂุ㒊ࡢุ᩿ࠊཬࡧࢻ࢖ࢶ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡢᩓᆺࡢせ⣲ࡢ㐺ษ࡞ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡀࠊᆒ୍ⓗ࡛ಙ㢗ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࠊࡋ࠿ࡶㄡ࡟ࡶᖹ

ุỴ㸧ࢆ⡆༢࡟ᴫほࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ≉チࡢ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ

➼࡟฼⏝ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ༑ศ࡟ᰂ㌾࡞ࠊỗḢᕞ≉チไᗘ㸦pan-EuropeanḢᕞࡢศᩓⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀࠊ㐣ཤᩘ༑ᖺ㛫࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㐍ᒎࡋࡓ࠿ࢆ▱patent system㸧ࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿ㘽࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡢ㞟୰ᆺࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀ≉チἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࢆᡤ⟶ࡋࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡟ࡼࡿᑂᰝࡣࡵࡗࡓ࡟ཷࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⡿ᅜࡢ஦᝟࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊḢϫ㸬⡿ᅜ≉チἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᆒ➼ㄽࡢⓎᒎ㻌ᕞ࡛ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊ௚ࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉チἲࡢࡇࡢศ㔝࡛ࡢⓎᒎ࡟ㆡṌࡍࡿ㸦yield㸧ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࠕࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ࣭࢔ࣥࢻ࣭

㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡜㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡜ࡢ┦஫స⏝ࠊཬࡧ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡀ≉チ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚

ࣂࣛࣥࢫࠖࡢไᗘ㸫ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㻱㻼㻻㻌ᑂุ㒊ཬࡧㅖἲᇦࡢᅜෆ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ

㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ᑐࡍࡿែᗘࢆኚ໬ࡉࡏࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢዲ౛ࡣࠊᆒ➼ㄽཬᦂࢀືࡃࠊ␗࡞ࡿุ᩿ࡀฟࡉࢀࡿไᗘ㸫ࡀ㸦᫬࡟㠀⣔⤫ⓗ࡛ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ㐃ࡧᑂᰝ⤒㐣⚗཯ゝཎ๎㸦the principle of prosecution history estoppel㸧ࡢⓎᒎ⥆ⓗ࡛࡞࠸㸧Ⓨᒎࢆ♧ࡋࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊ≉チࡢಖㆤཬࡧ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺ

࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅉࡳ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ౛ࡣࠊ≉チἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㞟୰ᆺࡢ᥍ッไᗘࡀࠊࣅࢪࢿ

࡟ಀࡿᶒ㝈ࡀ㞟୰ࡍࡿ୍ࡘࡢᶵ㛵ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢศ㔝ࢫ᪉ἲࡢሙྜࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≉チไᗘࡢ㐣ᗘࡢᣑᙇࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࡜ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ㝈ࡢ≉チἲࢆࠊຍ┕ᅜࡢ㛫࡛㐺ᗘ࡟ᆒ୍ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ

ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊၥ㢟ࡢ᰾ᚰࡣࠊἲⓗᏳᐃᛶ࡜ࠊἲࡢṇࡋࡉࠊ୺ࡓࡿ┦㐪Ⅼࡣࠊ㐺ᗘ࡟ᆒ୍ⓗ࡞ᇶ‽࡟ྥࡅࡓࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶᖖ࡟㐃⥆ⓗ࡛ࡣ⢭ᐦᛶཬࡧ㏱᫂࡞ᨻ⟇ⓗ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ㑅ᢥ㸦legal certainty vs. cor-࡞ࡃࠊ᫬࡟㠀⣔⤫ⓗ࡞Ⓨᒎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ≉チྍ

rectness, accurateness and transparent policy orientation of the law㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜

⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋࠊḢᕞ඲య࡛ᴟ➃࡞ゎỴἲࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࠊᨭ㓄ⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡣỴࡋ࡚࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᴟࡵ࡚␲ࢃࡋ࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿

ᆒ➼ㄽ࡜ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊࡓ࡜࠼≉チࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᩥゝ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛౵ᐖࡀㄆ

ࢃࡽࡎࠕᅛᐃࡋࡓ㸦frozen㸧ࠖࠊཪࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠕኚືࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸㸦sticky㸧ࠖࡵࡽࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ࡞࠾≉チ౵ᐖࢆㄆࡵᚓࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࢥ࣭࣮ࣔࣥࣟୖࡢ⌮ㄽุ౛ἲࢆゞṇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㐜ࢀ࡚ࠊ㛗ᮇ㛫࡟ࢃࡓࡾࡑࡢุ౛ἲࡀḢᕞ඲యࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᆒ➼ㄽࡣࠊ≉チࡢಖㆤ⠊ᅖࢆࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᩥゝࡼࡾᣑᙇࡍࡿຠᯝࢆ

≉チせ௳ࡢᇶ‽ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢḢᕞࡢไᗘ࡛ࡣࠊ

ᣢࡘࡓࡵࠊ≉チᶒࡢᶒ฼⠊ᅖࡣ≉チࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᩥゝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㝈⏺࡙ࡅࡽᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࡞ཎ๎ࡢ౛እ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿᑂᰝ⤒㐣௨ୖࡢẚ㍑᳨ウ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢไᗘࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞㛗ᡤ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ලయⓗ࡞▷ᡤࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㛗ᡤࡀ▷ᡤ࡟຾ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣࠊ

⚗཯ゝཎ๎࡜ࡣࠊ౛እ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ≉チᶒ⪅ࡀ≉チฟ㢪ᡭ⥆࡟࠾

㞟୰ⓗせ⣲࡜ศᩓⓗせ⣲࡜ࢆ㐺ษ࡟⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊጇᙜ࡞ไᗘタィࢆࡍࡿSee further also Jaeger, op. cit. supra note 5, at 83 et seqq.

ࡇ࡜࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᇶᮏⓗ஦ᐇࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡢḢᕞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ୍ᒙࡢ㞟

Cf. generally Schechter/Thomas, Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents୰໬࡜ 㻱㼁 ≉チཬࡧ 㻱㻱㼁㻼㻯 ࡢᑟධࢆồࡵࡿ᱌ࢆᕠࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᛕ㢌and Trademarks (2003), § 20.2.2.␗࡞ࡿἲᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᆒ➼ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᭱㏆ࡢᴫほ࡜࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐣ᗘࡢ㞟୰໬ࡣࠊἲࢆ≉ᐃࡢࡋ࡚ࠊḟࢆཧ↷ࠋCf. Pumfrey/Adelman et al., The Doctrine of Equivalents in Various Patent㸦ၥ㢟࠶ࡿ㸧≧ែ࡟ࠕᅛᐃࡍࡿ㸦freezing㸧ࠖ༴㝤ᛶࢆቑࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࢔ࣉ

Regimes – Does Anybody Have it Right?, 11 Yale J.L. & Tech. 261 (2008-2009). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࠸࡚ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ⿵ṇࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡢ㐺⏝ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ

a patent㸧ࠖࢆ㜵ࡄࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋGraver Tank ஦௳ࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢ⌮ㄽࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜⠊ᅖࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࠊཬࡧࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵ಀࡣࠊከ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ⿕␲౵ᐖ≀௳ཪࡣ᪉ἲࢆᆒ➼࡜ㄆࡵࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ

ᩘࡢッゴ࡜Ꮫ⾡◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

ุ᩿ࡍࡿࢸࢫࢺࢆ☜❧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕᶵ⬟࣭᪉ἲ࣭⤖ᯝࢸࢫࢺ⡿ᅜἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᆒ➼ㄽࡢ㉳※ࡣࠊᖺࡢ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡟ࡼࡿ Winans v.

㸦function-way-result test㸧ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡀ  ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠ୍ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࠊ

Denmead ஦௳ุỴ࡟㐳ࡿࠋྠุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ≉チࡢゎ㔘 ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠ୍ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᯝࡓࡋࠊ  ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠ୍ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽ

࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᩥゝ࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ㑊ࡅࠊ≉チⓎ᫂࡜⿕␲౵ᐖ⿦⨨࡜ࡢࡍሙྜ࡟ࠊᆒ➼࡜ㄆࡵࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ẚ㍑࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ඲యほᐹⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ᥇ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⌮ㄽࡣࠊࡑᖺࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊ኱ἲᘐ࡟ࡼࡿ Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinsonࡢᚋࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ཬࡧୗ⣭⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊලయ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

Co. ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊGraver Tank ஦௳ุỴࡢඛ౛ࢆ෌⪃ࡋࠊࠕᢏ⾡ࡀ୍ᒙ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ⏬ᮇⓗ࡞ Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air㧗ᗘ໬ࡋࠊ࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㐣⛬ࡶ」㞧໬ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊᶵ⬟࣭᪉ἲ࣭⤖ᯝࢸProducts Co. ஦௳ุỴ ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᆒ➼ㄽࢆヲ⣽࡟ㄽࡌࠊࡇࡢ⌮ㄽࡀྵពࢫࢺࡣࠊࠝࢡ࣮࣒ࣞᩥゝ࡜⿕␲౵ᐖ≀࣭᪉ἲࡢ㛫ࡢࠞ┦㐪ࡀᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡍࡿᨻ⟇ࡣࠊ≉チไᗘࡢ࢖ࣥࢭࣥࢸ࢕ࣈᵓ㐀ࢆಖㆤࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ᪨ࢆ᫂

࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ᖖ࡟༑ศ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋ

ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡢ᰿ᣐ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௬࡟ࠊ౵ᐖ⪅ࡀல⣽࡞ኚࠕᆒ➼ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ౵ᐖࢆㄆࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ
ࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡣࠊ᭦ࢆ᪋ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㈐௵ࢆචࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆチࡍ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢱ࣮ࡢពḧࡉࢀࡓ≀ཪࡣ᪉ἲ࡜ࠊ⿕␲౵ᐖ≀ཪࡣ᪉ἲ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢᕪ␗ࡀࠊ㠀ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ࡶࢆ๐ࡄ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᝏ㎥࡞ᶍೌ⪅㸦ࡓࡕ㸧ࠖࡀ⮬ࡽ࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᆒ➼࡟㛵ࡍࡿ➨஧ࡢࠊࡼࠕ≉チ࡟ᑐࡍࡿブḭ㸦fraud onࡴࡇ࡜ࡶጉࡆࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࡾ⊃࠸ࢸࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ㠀ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ᕪ␗ࡢࢸࢫࢺ㸦insubstantial

differences test㸧ࠖࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋ

ᆒ➼ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㔜せ࡞◊✲࡟ࡘࡁࠊ௨ୗࢆཧ↷ࠋSee, e.g., Adams, The Doctrineࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿୖ࿌ࢆཷࡅࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡀ≉チἲࡢᨵṇ࡟ࡼof Equivalents: Becoming a Derelict on the Waters of Patent Law, 84 Neb. L. Rev. 1113

ࡾ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡓ࠿ྰ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊ㸦ᆒ➼ㄽࡀࡲࡔᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤ㸧ᆒ➼ࡣ࡝ࡢ

(2006); Adelman/Francione, The Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Questions thatࡼ࠺࡟ㄆᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ᑐᛂࢆ㏕ࡽࢀࠊᆒ➼ㄽࢆ෌᳨ウࡍࡿ

Pennwalt Did Not Answer, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 673 (1989); Allison/Lemley, The (Unnoticed)
Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 955 (2007); Coniglia-ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊᖺࡢ≉チἲᨵṇ࡟ࡼࡾᆒ➼ㄽࡀ

ro/Greenbery/Lemley, Foreseeability in Patent Law, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1045 (2001);ᗫṆࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᑂᰝ⤒㐣⚗཯ゝཎ๎ࡀࠊ౵ᐖࡢ୺ᙇ

Lichtman, Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard, 93࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㜵ᚚ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ

Geo. L.J. 2013 (2005); Merges/Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90
Colum. L. Rev. 839 (1990); Meurer/Nard, Invention, Refinement, and Patent Claim Scope:ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᆒ➼ࡣࠊࢡ࣮࣒ࣞ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents, 93 Geo. L.J. 1947 (2005); Sarnoff,Id. at 608.

Abolishing the Doctrine of Equivalents and Claiming the Future after Festo, 19 Berkeley

Cf. id. at 608.ࡇࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠕ୕⪅ྠ୍ᛶࢸࢫࢺ triple identity test ࠖTech. L.J. 1157 (2004); Thomas; Claim Re-Construction: The Doctrine of Equivalents in࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ

the Post-Markman Era, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 153 (2005); Vermont, op. cit. supra note

62 F.3d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

64; Wagner, Reconsidering Estoppel: Patent Administration and the Failure of Festo, 151 U.

Id. at 1518.

Pa. L. Rev. 159 (2002).



Cf. id. at 1521 et seq.

56 U.S. 330 (1853).

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).

339 U.S. 605 (1950).



Cf. id. at 25 et seq.

Id. at 607.



Cf. id. at 30. ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢಶࠎࡢせ⣲ẖ࡟ุ᩿ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⥆࠸࡚ࠊᆒ➼ࡢุ㆟఍࡟␃ಖࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ☜❧ࡋࡓἲ࡟ᢤᮏⓗ࡞ኚ᭦ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓ᩿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㐺ษ࡞ࢸࢫࢺࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠺ㄽⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࠊࠕ୕⪅ྠ୍ᛶࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࢆ㠀㞴ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࢸࢫࢺ㸦triple identity test㸧ࡣࠊᶵᲔ⿦⨨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣ㐺ษ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ

ࠕ᭱㧗⿢ࡢඛ౛࡟ᩚྜⓗ࡛ࠊ㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡢ⌧ᐇࡢᐇົࢆᑛ㔜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠖ

࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௚ࡢ≀ࡸ᪉ἲࡢศᯒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢุ᩿ᯟ⤌ࡳࡣ࠶ࡲࡾᙺ❧ࡓᑂᰝ⤒㐣⚗཯ゝᢠᘚ࡟ಀࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ᣦ♧ࢆ୚࠼ࡓࠋ

࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊࠕ㠀ᐇ㉁ⓗᕪ␗ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊఱࢆࡶࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿᕪ␗ࢆࠗ㠀ᐇ᭱㧗⿢ࡀࠊἲࢆࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࡿᙧ࡛㻯㻭㻲㻯࡟஦௳ࢆᕪࡋᡠ

㉁ⓗ࡞࠘ࡶࡢ࡜ㄆࡵࡿ࠿࡟ࡘࡁࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋ

ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࡏࡎࠊࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ᭱㧗⿢ࡢពぢ࡜ᩚྜⓗ࡟஦௳ࡢ஦ᐇ㠃ࢆศࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ࡝ࢀ࠿୍ࡘࡢࢸࢫࢺࡀᆒ➼࡟㛵ࡍࡿ၏୍ࡢ

ᯒࡍࡿ⠊ᅖ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡀ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⪃࠼ฟࡍᶵ఍ࢆ

㐺ษ࡞ࢸࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࡏࡎࠊᆒ➼࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢸࢫࢺࢆࢣ࣮ࢫ࣭ࣂ࢖࣭ࢣ࣮

ྰᐃࡋࡘࡘࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ᕪࡋᡠࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙

ࢫ࡛⢭⦓໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢࠕᑓ㛛ⓗ▱ぢࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾‶ࡢ⌧ࢀ࡜ぢ࡚ࡼ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡅࡿ೺඲࡞ุ᩿ࠖ࡟ጤࡡࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓ ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࡇࡢἲ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊἲ

ᆒ➼ㄽ࡜ᑂᰝ⤒㐣⚗཯ゝࡢࠊኚ໬࡟ᐩࡴⓎᒎࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡜㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢࡜ⓗᏳᐃᛶࠊᩚྜᛶཬࡧᑂᰝྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᡭ⥆㠃ࡢᨵၿࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ

ࡢ┦஫స⏝ࠊཬࡧ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡢ㏆ᖺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉チἲ࡟ᑐࡍࡿጼໃࡢኚ໬ࢆࠊ

࠺࡟㐍ࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌࡟ጤࡡࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

඾ᆺⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุỴࢆ୍ᒙཝᐦ࡟┘どࡋࠊ

Warner Jenkinson ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢᑓ㛛ⓗ▱ぢ࡜ࡇࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿἲࡢⓎᒎࢆ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ

ᶒጾ࡟Ẽ㓄ࡾࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊ ᖺᚋࠊᆒ➼ㄽࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿἲ⌮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᑂᰝ⤒㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢุỴࢆ୍ᒙ㢖⦾࡟ᑂᰝࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙ࡟ᡠࡾࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶

㐣⚗཯ゝཎ๎ࡢཝᐦ࡞㐺⏝⠊ᅖࢆㄽࡌࡓ Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzokuࡿࠋࡑࡢୖࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊⓎ᫂⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟࠾࠸࡚☜❧ࡋࡓᮇᚅ

Kogyo Kabushiki Co. ุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢඹឤࡣⷧࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ

ࢆᡴࡕ○ࡃࡼ࠺࡞ุ౛ἲࡢኚ໬ࡢᇶ♏࡜࡞ࡿᨻ⟇ࢆ᏶඲࡟⪃៖࡟ධࢀࠊࡑ

ุỴࡣࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯ࡢุ᩿ࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡋࠊ≉チἲ࡟㐺ྜࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆῶ

ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆᑾࡃࡍࡼ࠺࡞㧗ရ㉁ࡢ≉チἲࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡼ

⦰ࡍࡿ࡭ࡃฟ㢪ෆᐜࢆ⿵ṇࡋࡓሙྜࠊࡑࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊῶ⦰⿵ṇࡉࢀࡓࢡ࣮ࣞ

࠺࡞ኚ໬ࢆᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚༊ูࡍࡿ㸦differentiate㸧ࡇ࡜ࡢᚲせᛶࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚

࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᆒ➼ㄽࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⤯ᑐⓗ࡟㐽᩿ࡍࡿ᰿ᣐ㸦an absolute bar㸧࡟ࡣ

࠸ࡿࠋ



࡞ࡽࡎࠊ⿵ṇࡢ⌮⏤࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜ุ♧ࡋࡓ ࠋࡑࢀ௨ୖ࡟ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡟ࡣࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ඲ဨ୍⮴ࡢពぢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ

Ϭ㸬Ꮫࡪ࡭ࡁᩍカ㸽㻌ࠕ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊⓎ᫂⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟࠾࠸࡚☜❧ࡉࢀࡓᮇᚅࢆᡴࡕ○ࡃࡼ௨ୖ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ≉チἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㞟୰ᆺ᥍ッ⿢ุᡤࡢ๰タࠊ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊៅ㔜࡛࠶ࡽࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᭱㧗⿢ࡢุ౛ἲୖࡢࠕᣦ㔪ࢆ↓どࡋࡓࠖࡇ࡜࡟ࡘࡁࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࢆᢈุࡋ ࠊᮏ᮶

ཬࡧࡑࡢᅄ༙ୡ⣖ࡢ㐠⏝࡜࠸࠺ࠕᐇ㦂ࠖࡣࠊ≉チἲࡢ୍㒊≉ᐃศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㞟୰໬࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢၥ㢟ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡣ࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡢࠊከࡃࡢⅬ࡛ᡂຌ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣔࢹࣝࢆ௚ࡢἲᇦ㸦≉࡟Ḣᕞ㸧࡟ࠕ㍺



Id. at 29.

Id. at 39 et seq.

Id. at 40.

Id. at 39.



535 U.S. 722 (2002).

Id. at 739.

Cf. id. passim.



Id. at 738.

Id. at 739.



Id. at 741 et seq. Cf. also Peterson, op. cit. supra note 31, at 246.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ฟࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊࡍ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊࡶࡋࡶࡑࡢ
⟅࠼ࡀ᫝࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢࠝࣔࢹࣝࢆ㍺ฟࡍࡿࠞ௻࡚ࡣࠊୖ࡛♧ࡋࡓⅬࡢ࡯▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࠿࡟ࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿၥ㢟࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡑࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑓ㛛ⓗุ᩿ࡢ㉁࡜㎿㏿ᛶࢆྠ⛬ᗘࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊḟࡢⅬࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠸࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⡿ᅜࡢᩥ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢไᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣇ࢛࣮࣒࣭ࣛࢩࣙࢵࣆࣥࢢࡑࡢ௚ࡢ

⊩ࡀࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢ≉チ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺไᗘࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜྛッゴᡓ⾡ࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ༢୍ࡢ≉チᶒཬࡧᕞࡢㅖ᮲௳ࡢ཰ᩡ㸦convergence㸧ࡀẚ㍑ⓗ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ≉ᚩ࡜ࡍࡿࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟タ❧ࡉࢀࡿ≉チ⿢ุᡤࡢไᗘタィࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢไᗘࡀᐇ㝿࡟⡿ᅜࡢ⤒῭ⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗ≧ἣࢆ⫼ᬒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ㆟ㄽࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟ࡑࡢᙉࡳࢆⓎ᥹࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㏣ຍⓗ࡞ࢥࢫࢺࢆᣍࡃࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞

࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊḢᕞ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜

ࡃࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢࢥࢫࢺࢆ⠇⣙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾཌ⏕࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟࡛࠶ࡿࠋḢᕞ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿᅜࠎࡢἲⓗఏ⤫ࡸ⤒῭ⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗㅖ᮲ៅ㔜࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

௳ࡢ཰ᩡࡣࠊ୍㒊ࡢຍ┕ᅜࡢ㛫࡛ࡣࡲࡔࡑࢀ࡯࡝㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㻱㼁 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከᩘࡢᅜᐙ࠿ࡽᡂࡿሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢ≉チ⿢ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᙜ↛ࠊ≉チಖㆤࡢ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇົ࡟ᑐࡍࡿྛຍ┕ᅜࡢែᗘ࡟ࡶᙳ

ุᡤࢆ๰タࡍࡿ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ㔜せᛶࢆỴࡋ࡚㍍ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠕᚕᛖƷᨦُ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸦the language barrier㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ༢୍ࡢ 㻱㼁 ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊ㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢሙྜࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᡭ⥆ୖࡢⓎᒎࡀッゴࢥࢫࢺࢆୗࡆ

≉チไᗘࠊཬࡧࡑࡢ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࡢࡓࡵࡢ㞟୰ⓗ࡞⿢ุᡤไᗘࡢᑟ

ࡓࠋ㻱㼁 ≉チࠊཬࡧ㞟୰ᆺࡢḢᕞ≉チッゴไᗘࡢ๰タࡶࠊ㸦ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ㛗ᮇධ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊゝㄒࡢၥ㢟ࡣ஧ࡘࡢ㠃ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊཎᚩӍƸཎᚩǯⓗ࡟ࡣ㸧ࢥࢫࢺࢆୗࡆࠊḢᕞ⤒῭࡟ཌ⏕฼ᚓࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡣ㧗ࡑ࠺࡛ȬȸȠƷᎇᚪ ࡢၥ㢟࡜ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡑࡢ௚ࡢྖἲⓗᶵ㛵࡟࠾ࡅࡿ৖ዓƷᚕᛖ࠶ࡿࠋ⤫୍ࡉࢀࡓッゴไᗘࡣࠊ≉࡟ࠊࢥࢫࢺࡢ࠿࠿ࡿ㔜」ッゴࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࠸࠺ࢭࣥࢩࢸ࢕ࣦ࡞ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྜពࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ࠸ࡃ

࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊ≉チッゴࡢࢥࢫࢺࢆୗࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊッࡘ࠿ࡢゝㄒࠊྍ⬟࡜࠶ࡽࡤ 㻱㼁 ຍ┕ᅜࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒ࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ

ゴᙜ஦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㨩ຊⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≉࡟୰ᑠ௻ᴗ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚฼⏝ࡋࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ

ฟ㢪ேཬࡧ≉チᗇ࡟⭾኱࡞㈇ᢸࢆㄢࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ࢥࢫ

ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ◊✲ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢥࢫࢺࡀప࠸ッゴไᗘ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࡲࡎࠊ≉࡟ࠊ⌧ᅾࡣッゴࢥࢫࢺࡀ㧗࠸ࡓࡵ࡟Ḣᕞ≉チไᗘࢆ࠶ࡲࡾ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᅜࠎࡢᙜ஦⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊッゴάືࡀάⓎ໬ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㛗ᮇⓗ࡟ࡣࠊッゴࡢቑຍࡣࠊࡼࡾಙ㢗࡛ࡁࡿุ౛ἲࡢⓎᒎࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࠊッゴࡢ⤖ᯝࡢண᝿ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࠊࡑࡋ࡚≉チࡢ౯್ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊබ┈


Cf. Jaeger, op. cit. supra note 5, at 90.≉チἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿἲᚊࡢᶆ‽໬ཬࡧ㞟୰ⓗ࡞Ḣᕞ≉チ⿢ุᡤࡢᵓ⠏࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊゝㄒࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࢆཧ↷ࠋCf., e.g.,࡜⚾┈ࡢ୧㠃࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊไᗘࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘᨵၿࡍࡿ࠿

van Benthem, The Solution to the Language Problem in the European Patent Conventions,ࡣࠊከศ࡟ࠊไᗘタィࡢ⣽㒊ࡢࢥࢫࢺ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪࡜ุỴࡢ㉁ḟ➨࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

IIC 1975, 6(1), 1; Bossung, A Union Patent Instead of the Community Patent – Developing≉࡟ࠊࠝ㻱㻱㼁㻼㻯 ࡢࠞ➨୍ᑂ⿢ุᡤࡢᆅ᪉㒊ཬࡧᆅᇦ㒊㸦the local and regional

the European Patent Into an EU Patent, IIC 2003, 34(1), 1, 19 et seqq.; Franzosi, A Com-divisions㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⟶㎄ᶒࡢศ㓄ࢆ᫂☜࡟⾜࠸ࠊ㔜」ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᤼㝖

munity Patent: Three Suggestions for Two Difficulties, IIC 2004, 35(4), 416, 417 et seqq.;
Gaster, Zum Stand der Arbeiten der EU an einer Reform des europäischen Patentwesens,


Cf. Harhoff, op. cit. supra note 5, pp. 37 et seqq.; van Pottelsberghe/Danguy, Economic(2010) Medien und Recht International Edition, 1 et seqq.; Pagenberg, Community Patent –Main Features and Comments, IIC 2003, 34(3), 281; Pegram, op. cit. supra note 145, at

Cost-Benefits Analysis of the Community Patent, pp. 30 et seqq., available at

599 et seqq.

<http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/studies/compact-cost%20-benefit-study-final_en.pdf>.

(Council Doc. 7159/03, reproduced in OJ EPO 2003, 218).ྠᩥ᭩ࡣࠊ≉チࡢࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ

Cf. the “Common Political Approach of 3 March 2003” on the Community PatentCf. Harhoff, op. cit. supra note 5, p. 22, pp. 42 et seqq.

ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ 㻱㼁 ຍ┕ᅜࡢゝㄒ࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡓࡀࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࢥࢫࢺࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࡇ



Cf. Harhoff, op. cit. supra note 5, pp. 38 et seqq.; Jaeger, op. cit. supra note 5, at 78.

࡜࡜」㞧ࡍࡂࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺࡞⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ᪉㔪ࡣᣄ⤯ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ࢺࢆⓎ⏕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⌮஦఍つ๎᱌࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࢥࢫࢺࢆ๐ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ

ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ㐍Ṍᛶせ௳ࡢỈ‽࡜ࠊᆒ➼ㄽࡢ㐺⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉チᶒࡢຠຊ⠊ᅖ࠶ࡿ 㻱㼁 ≉チࢆ඲㠃ⓗ࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᙜヱ≉チ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⣮த࡟࠾࠸࡚

࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࠊៅ㔜࡞ㄪᩚࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ

ࡢࡳせồࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ⿢ุᡤཬࡧࡑࡢ௚ྖἲⓗᶵ㛵ࡢᡭ⥆࡜ࠊ≉チཬࡧࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࡢ⩻ヂࠊ୪ࡧ࡟㸦㞟୰ⓗ࡞ไᗘࡢୗࡢ㸧⿢ุᡤᡭ⥆࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒࡢ㑅ᢥ ࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢฟ㢪ேཬࡧཎ࿌࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᖹ➼࡞฼⏝ࡢゝㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄽதࡣࠊ༢࡟ᨻ἞ⓗ࡞ᛶ᱁ࢆᣢࡘࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ≉チἲ࡟࠾ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࢹࣜࢣ࣮ࢺ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓព࿡ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿゝㄒࢆ㑅࠸࡚ຠ⋡ⓗ࡞࢖ࣥࢭࣥࢸ࢕ࣈࢆ࠸࠿࡟タᐃࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡢ᰾ᚰ࡟㛵ᢥࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣ࠶ࡿἲᇦ㸦ᅜ㸧ࢆ㑅ዲࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㛵ಀᅜ୪ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⤖ᒁࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊゝㄒࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡧ࡟ࡑࡢ⿢ุᡤࠊἲⓗఏ⤫ཬࡧἲᚊᑓ㛛ᐙ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࠿࡞ࡾࡢ≉ᶒ࡜࡞ࡿ୍

࡝ࡢゎỴἲࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࡶࠊἲࡢ㉁ࢆᦆ࡞࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㑊ࡅ㞴࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

᪉ࠊ௚ࡢᅜࢆᕪูࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⤖ᒁ 㻱㻱㼁㻼㻯 ࡢ᥇ᢥࢆ㞴ࡋࡃࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊᆒ୍࡛⢭ᐦ࡞ἲࡢせㄳࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࡓࡵࠊ

ࡍࡿࠋゝㄒࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝㔜኱࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫬ᐅࢆ

ࡲࡓゝㄒࡢ㞀ቨࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍ᒙࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟ࠕᙧᘧⓗ࡛ࠖ⏬୍ⓗ࡞ἲࠊࡍ࡞

ᚓࡓྜពࢆᙧᡂ࡛ࡁࡿぢ㎸ࡳࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊゝㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไᗘࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡣࠊ

ࢃࡕࠊᨻ⟇ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽぢ࡚㉁ࡀࠕࡼࡾప࠸ࠖἲࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋ㻱㼁 ⌮஦఍ࡢ⤖ㄽ࠿ࡽእࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ࡶ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋከࡃࡲ࠺༴㝤ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡇࡢࢹ࢕࣐ࣞࣥࢆゎỴࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ㞟୰ⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ศᩓࡢㄽ⪅ࡀࠊ≉チἲ࡟ࡼࡿ࢖ࣀ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥ࡬ࡢ࢖ࣥࢭࣥࢸ࢕ࣈࢆ᭱㐺໬ࡍࡿⓗ࡞せ⣲ࢆ㐺ษ࡟ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡉࡏࡓࠊ㐺ษ࡞ไᗘࢆタィࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶


⩻ヂࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊḢᕞ≉チࡢ⌧≧ࢆぢࢀࡤ᫂ⓑ࡟࡞ࡿࠋᖺ࡟ࠊ㻱㻼㻯 ⥾⣙ᅜࡣࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋୗ⣭ᑂࡢ஦ᐇㄆᐃ࡟ᣊ᮰ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊʙܱǛ‫ྸݙ‬ƢǔೌᨂƷƋǔ㸦with the power to review the facts㸧㞟୰ⓗ࡞᥍ッ⿢ุᡤ࡛“the Agreement on the Application of Article 65 EPC” (OJ EPO 2001, 550)ࢆ᥇ᢥࡋࡓࠋ

࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢၥ㢟ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡑ

ࡇࢀࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࠕࣟࣥࢻࣥ༠ᐃࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊ㻱㻼㻯 ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ௜୚ࡉࢀࡓḢᕞ≉チ࡟㛵ࡍࡢࡼ࠺࡞⿢ุᡤࡢ⿢ุᐁࢆៅ㔜࡟㑅௵ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊไᗘࡢᡂຌ࡟୙ྍḞ࡛ࡿ⩻ヂ㈝⏝ࡢ๐ῶࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿ௵ពⓗ࡞௙⤌ࡳࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ༠ᐃ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ

࠶ࡿࠋ㻱㻼㻻 ࡢබ⏝ㄒࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕⱥㄒࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒཪࡣࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࢆබ⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⥾⣙ᅜࡣࠊḢᕞ≉チࢆᙜヱ⥾⣙ᅜࡢබ⏝ㄒࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୙せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸⥾⣙ᅜࡢሙྜࡣࠊ㻱㻼㻻 ࡢබ⏝ㄒࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࢆࠕᣦᐃゝㄒࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ
Ḣᕞ≉チࡀᙜヱ⥾⣙ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ຠຊࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᣦᐃゝㄒ࡟⩻ヂࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᚋ⪅ࡢ⥾⣙ᅜࡣࠊ≉チࢡ࣮࣒ࣞࢆࠊࡑࡢබ⏝ㄒࡢ୍ࡘ࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿϭ㸬⤖ㄽ㻌 ≉チ஦௳࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᥍ッ஦௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑓᒓⓗ⟶㎄ᶒࢆᣢࡘ 㻯㻭㻲㻯㻌ࡢ๰タࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ༠ᐃࡣ௵ពⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⥾⣙ᅜ࡟࡜㐠Ⴀࡣࠊ㞟୰ⓗ࡞≉チ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࡢไᗘࡢ㛗ᡤࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ㞟୰⿢㔞ࡢవᆅࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㻱㼁 ຍ┕ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⩻ヂࣞࢪ࣮࣒࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞

ᕪ␗ࡣᏑ⥆ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㧗࠸ࢥࢫࢺ࡜」㞧࡞ᡭ⥆ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCf. EuropeanCommission, Proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the

Reichweite des Patentschutzes – Software I, in: Eifert/Hoffmann-Riem (Eds.), Geistiges

European Union patent, COM(2010)350 final, at 2.

Eigentum und Innovation (2008), pp. 245 et seqq.; Leistner, Computerimplementierte

Erfindungen im System des “Geistigen Eigentums”, in: Depenheuer/Peifer (Eds.), Geistiges

Cf. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation ar-Cf. Dreyfuss, Institutional Identity, op. cit. supra note 43, at 813; Dreier, Sinnvolle

rangements for the European Union patent, COM(2010)350 final, Article 4.

Eigentum: Schutzrecht oder Ausbeutungstitel? (2008), pp. 187 et seqq.; id., Sinnvolle

Reichweite des Patentschutzes – Software II, in: Eifert/Hoffmann-Riem (Eds.), Geistiges⌧⾜ࡢᥦ᱌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௨ୗࢆཧ↷ࠋCf. Council of the European Union, Draft

Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court and Draft Statute of 23 March

Eigentum und Innovation (2008), pp. 267 et seqq. 㐍Ṍᛶࡢุ᩿ᇶ‽࡜≉チᶒࡢ⠊ᅖ࡜

2009, Doc. 7928/09, Articles 29 to 31.ࡢ㛫ࡢ㐺ษ࡞ࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡿ⤒῭ⓗᙳ㡪࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ࡟ࡘࡁࠊḟࢆཧ↷ࠋCf.

Cf. Haedicke/Grosch, op. cit. supra note 11, at 201.

Scotchmer, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,



Cf. supra note 19.5 J. Econ. Persp. 29 (1991). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

≉チἲࡢⓎᒎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไᗘタィࡢᙳ㡪 㻸㼑㼕㼟㼠㼚㼑㼞㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌 㻷㼘㼑㼕㼚㼑㼙㼑㼚㼗㼑 ⓗ࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࠊἲࡢᆒ୍ᛶ࡜⢭ᐦᛶࢆ኱ࡁࡃྥୖࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟☜ᐇ࡟ᙺࠝヂ⪅௜グࠞ

❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉チἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢṇ☜ᛶ࡟⮬ศࡢ௙஦ࡸᢞ㈨ࢆ౫Ꮡࡋ

 ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊLeistner/Kleinemenke, The Impact of Institutional Design on the Develop-࡚࠸ࡿேཬࡧ஦ᴗ⪅ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊἲࡢᆒ୍ᛶ࡜⢭ᐦᛶࡣࠊ≉࡟㔜せ࡞

ment of Patent Law: Patentability of Computer Programs and Business Methods in Europe≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢไᗘࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢࢥࢫࢺࢆЪถ ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ㛗ᡤ࡟ࡣࠕ౯᱁ࢱࢢ price-tag ࠖࡀ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㞟୰໬ࡢand the United States of America as a Topical Example, 3 Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Law Journal (ZGE/IPJ) 273 (2010) ࡟ࠊᇳ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿⱝᖸࡢຍ
➹ಟṇࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢ⩻ヂ࡛࠶ࡿࠋLeistner ᩍᤵࡣࠊᖺ᭶  ᪥ࠊ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲ◊✲఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃሗ࿌ࢆࡉࢀࡓࠋ

ᙳ㡪ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊἲࡢṇ☜ᛶ࡜㉁ࡀᦆ࡞ࢃࢀࠊⳘ኱࡞ࢥࢫࢺࢆႆဃ ࡉࡏヂㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᑡࡋࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡜ࠊࡲࡎࠊ⾲㢟ཬࡧᮏᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࢟

ࡿࠋ㐺ษ࡟タィࡉࢀࡓไᗘࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ▷ᡤࢆ⦰ῶࡋࠊ㏕ࡾࡃࡿཌ⏕ᦆኻ࣮࣮࣡ࢻ࡛࠶ࡿࠕไᗘタィࠖࡣࠊ“institutional design” ࡢヂ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ᮶ព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜

ࢆ๐ῶࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ᏶඲࡟᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡟↓⌮࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅜࢆࡲࡓࡀࡿ⟶㎄ᶒࢆᣢࡘ㞟୰ᆺࡢ≉チ⿢ุᡤࢆᡂ
ຌࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊḢᕞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝㄒࡢ㞀ቨ࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
≉࡟㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ✀ࠎࡢࢥࢫࢺ࡜฼┈ࢆẚ㍑⪃㔞ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡇࢁࡣࠊุ᩿࣭Ỵᐃ୺య࡟㛵ࡍࡿไᗘࡢタィ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊヂㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ⡆␎࡟ࠕไᗘタィࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊཎᩥ୰ࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤ࡟㛵ࡋ“circuit courts”࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊUS Courtsࠕ㐃㑥᥍ッ⿢ุᡤࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
of Appeals ࢆᣦࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
➨୕࡟ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕἲࠖ
㸦“law”㸧ཬࡧࠕุ౛ἲࠖ㸦“case law”㸧ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ

ࡿࠋࡑࡢศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊ㛵ಀࡍࡿᅜࡢ♫఍ⓗࠊ⤒῭ⓗཬࡧἲⓗ࡞᮲௳࡜ఏ

ሙྜࠊ⾜ᨻᶵ㛵ࡢ‽ྖἲⓗᡭ⥆࡟࠾ࡅࡿุ᩿㸦⡿ᅜ 㻼㼀㻻㻌ࡸ 㻱㻼㻻㻌ࡢᑂุ㒊ࡢᑂỴ➼㸧⤫࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊኚࢃࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୍✀ࡢࢹ࢕࣐ࣞࣥ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋ

ࢆࡶྵࡴព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟␃ព࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊศᩓᆺࡢ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࡢไᗘࡣࠊ௒㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡞♫఍ⓗࠊ⤒῭ⓗཬࡧἲⓗ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ⤫୍໬㸦convergence㸧ࢆせࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࠝ ࡛ࠞᅖࢇࡔ㒊ศࡣࠊヂ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⿵㊊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡑࢀࡽࡢ᮲௳ࡀከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡯࡝ࠊ㞟୰ᆺไᗘ࡬ࡢせㄳࡣ୍ᒙษᐇ࡟࡞ࡿ࠿
ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡀከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡯࡝㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒࡢ㞀ቨࡀ㧗࠸࡯࡝㸧ࠊ㞟୰ᆺࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀࠕప࠸ࠖ㉁ࡢἲࢆ๰ฟࡍࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᖺᚋ༙࡟ࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ 㻱㼁 ≉チไᗘ࡟ಀࡿ୺せ࡞せ⣲ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ᡂ❧ࡋࡓྜពࡣࠊᨻ἞ⓗࣈࣞ࢖ࢡࢫ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚⛠㈶ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮍ
ゎỴࡢၥ㢟ࡢከࡉࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡽࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ࠿࠿ࡿ❧ἲᡭ⥆ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊ㻱㼁 ≉チཬࡧ 㻱㻱㼁㻼㻯 ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ࠶࡜ᖺ࡞࠸
ࡋᖺ௨ෆ࡟ᐇ᪋࡟⛣ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ㏻ࡋࡀ㛗ᮇ㛫࡟ࢃࡓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊ᪂ࡋ
࠸≉チἲࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜≉࡟ࡑࡢไᗘタィࡢ⣽㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ❧ἲᶵ㛵ࡀៅ㔜࡟᳨ウࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㞟୰ᆺ࡜ศᩓᆺࡢ≉チ࢚ࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺไᗘࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜▷ᡤࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ㞟୰ᆺ࡜ศᩓᆺࡢせ⣲ࢆៅ㔜࡟ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⤫୍ⓗ࡞ 㻱㼁 ≉チไᗘࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿ㘽࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   