[특허 분쟁] Berkheimer v. HP Inc.에 대한 미국 CAFC 2018. 2. 8. 판결

Steven E. Berkheimer는 US7,447,713 특허의 침해를 이유로 일리노이북부 연방지방법원에서 HP에 대하여 소송을 제기하였습니다. HP는 Markman hearing 후에 미국 특허법 제101조를 근거로 특허 적격성이 없다고 약식 판결(summary judgment)을 신청했습니다. 이에 연방지방법원은 그 신청을 허여하였으나Berkheimer는 이에 대하여 항소했습니다.

위 713 특허의 청구항 1은 아래와 같습니다.

1.  A method of archiving an item comprising in a computer processing system:

    presenting the item to a parser;

    parsing the item into a plurality of multi-part object structures wherein portions of the structures have searchable information tags associated therewith;

   evaluating the object structures in accordance with object structures previously stored in an archive;

    presenting an evaluated object structure for manual reconciliation at least where there is a predetermined variance between the object and at least one of a predetermined standard and a user defined rule.

4.  The method as in claim 1 which includes storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy.

CAFC는 위 특허발명에 대하여 Alice 테스트를 적용하였습니다. 1단계 테스트에서 Berkheimer는 parsing 단계는 데이터 구조를 마치 소스코드에서 목적코드로 변환하는 기술을 제시하고 있다고 주장하였습니다. 그러나 CAFC는 위 특허 발명의 각청구항이 데이터에 대한 parsing, comparing, storing, editing에 관련된 추상적아이디어에 불과하다고 판단하였습니다. 2단계 테스트에서 CAFC는 청구항 4-7항발명에 대해서 상당한 여분 없이 데이터 구조를 저장하는 것이 시스템동작 효율을향상시키고 저장비용을 절감하여 통상적이지 않은 발명적 개념(inventive concept)이 있다는 점에 다툴 여지가 있다고 보았고, 이에 대해서 특허부적격으로약식판결한 연방지방법원의 판결을 파기 환송하였습니다. 다만, 위 판결은 위 특허청구항 4-7항에 특허적격이 있다는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니라 해당 청구항에 대하여 약식판결한 것이 부적절하다는 것에 불과합니다.

기존에는 특허적격 여부는 법의 문제로 특허에 대한 도전자가 단순히 특허적격이없다는 주장만으로 약식판결을 할 수 있다고 보았으나, 위 CAFC 판결은 명시적으로 지방법원에 특허적격 여부를 정당화하기 위한 증거 제출 등의 사실 조사를 요구하면서 파기환송한 것입니다. 위 판결로 특허적격 여부에 대해서도 clear and convincing evidence이 명시적으로 필요하다면 특허부적격에 의한 무효가 보다어려워질 것으로 보입니다.

정회목 변호사