미국 특허법 101조는 발명의 성립성에 대한 내용을 규정하고 있다. 발명이 특허로 인정을 받을 수 있도록 특허법에서 규정된 형식에 맞도록 특허 명세서가 작성돼야 한다.

이와 관련된 사례를 보여주는 미국 연방순회항소법원(Federal Circuit)의 2019년 원고인 차지포인트(ChargePoint Inc.)와 피고인 세마 케넥트(Sema Connect Inc.) 사이의 판결 내용은 아래와 같다.

국문 요약:

미국 연방순회항소법원은 본 특허가 “향상된 충전소”에 대한 것이 아니라 “전기 충전소에 인가된 네트워크"에 관한 아이디어라는 점을 언급했다.

결과적으로 “네트워크화된 충전소”와 관련된 특허를 무효화했다. 특허 명세서가 미국 특허법의 규칙에 맞지 않아 특허 등록이 무효화돤 사례이다.

영문 요약 : S101 Involving Electric Vehicle Technology

ChargePoint Inc. v. Sema Connect Inc. (F.C. 2019)

History:

S101 Invalidation:

•FC affirmed and invalidated a patent related to networked charging stations.

•Patent owner argued that the invention improved charging stations by allowing the stations to be managed from a central location, and allowing drivers to locate stations, and allowing users to interact intelligently with the electricity grid.

•Not abstract b/c the invention is tangible and builds a better machine.

•District Court:

•Disagreed with the patent owner.

•Asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of communication over a network to interact with a device connected to the network.

•Federal Circuit:

•FC affirmed and analyzed specification:

•“specification also makes clear –by what it states and what it does not –that the invention is the idea of network-controlled charging stations.”

•“the specification never suggests that the charging station itself is improved from a technical perspective.”

•Patent is directed to the idea of communicating over a network applied to electric car charging stations, instead of being directed to an improved charging station.

•Many consider this case to be inconsistent with the new USPTO guidance.

•Claim 1 included numerous physical electrical components, but FC ignored them.

•It may take some time for USPTO and FC to reach an agreement on S101 analysis.