| Reference: | 中文文獻
書籍
馮震宇，智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究，元照，2003年。
劉尚志、陳佳麟，電子商務與電腦軟體之專利保護—發展、分析、創新與策略，翰蘆圖書，2001年。
期刊
王偉霖，美國商業方法專利之最新發展與趨勢，科技法律評析，2期，頁83-114，2009年6月。
宋皇志，方興未艾之電子商務發明專利適格性的爭議，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁153-172，2014年9月。
李森堙，Bilski案判決後的美國方法發明專利標的適格性認定，科技法律透析，24卷2期，頁2-7，2012年2月。
何美瑩、許維蓉、鄭中人，變動中的可專利客體適格性標準—「Mayo v. Promethus案」之後，10期。頁23-56，2012年7月。
洪志勳，美國軟體專利發展回顧及現況分析，科技法律透析，19卷7期，頁17-23，2007年7月。
胡心蘭、蔡岳勳，促進抑或是阻礙創新？從法律經濟學角度審視美國商業方法專利之適格性爭議—以In Re Bilski案為例，政大智慧財產評論，7卷2期，頁125-176，2009年10月。
馮震宇，從美國商業方法專利談電子商務的發展，月旦法學雜誌，48期，頁97-108，1999年4月。
趙慶冷，電腦軟體專利標的適格性之測試法演進—從歐洲觀察美國，智慧財產權月刊，201期，頁5-47，2015年9月。
劉國讚、徐偉甄，電腦軟體之專利標的適格性在美國的演變—從Bilski到Alice判決，專利師，22期，頁100-123，2015年7月。
學位論文
李治安，電子商務商業方法與專利制度，國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文，2001年。
網路資訊
馮震宇，Alice v. CLS Bank判決案可能翻轉美國軟體專利的遊戲規則，2014年10月21日，http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=10238。
英文文獻
書籍
MERGERS, ROBERT P., PETER S. MENELL& MARK A. LEMLEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE (2010).
MULLER, JANICE M., AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENT LAW (2006).
PATTERSON, DAVID A. AND JOHN L. HENNESSY, COMPUTER ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN:THE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE INTERFACE (2009).
期刊
King Chad, Abort, Retry, Fail：Protection for software-related inventions in the wake of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc, 85 CORNELL L. REV.1118 (2000).
Lemley, Mark A, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life after Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315 (2011).
Estreicher, Samuel, John E. Sexton, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court`s Responsibilities: An Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV 681 (1984).
Schecter, Manny, Shawn Ambwani, Alexander Shei & Robert Jain, The effects of alice on covered business method (CBM) reviews, Northwestern Journal of Technologyand Intellectual Property, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2704646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2704646.
Wood, Jarrad Lucian & Jonathan R.K. Stroud, Three hundred nos: an empirical analysis of the first 300 denials of institution for inter partes and covered business method patent reviews prior to in re cuozzo speed technologies, 14 THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 112 (2015).
Zivojnovic, Ognjen, Patentable Subject Matter after Alice— Distinguishing Narrow Software Patents from Overly Broad Business Method Patents, 30 BERKELEY TECH.L.J. 807 (2015).
網路資訊
Finnegan, Rule Review New Subject Matter Eligibility Interim Guidance After Alice, Mayo, and Myriad: http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/Newsletters/Full_Disclosure/2015/January/FullDisclosure_Jan15_5.html (last visited Feb. 17, 2016).
Jack Lu, Surviving Alice: Signs that the patent market has weathered the Alice storm, at least for now (Feb. 7, 2016): http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/07/surviving-alice-signs-patent-market-weathered-alice-storm-least-now/id=65859/.
Kevin Emerson Collins, Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”(Nov. 2, 2008): http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/11/professor-colli.html.
LTP, Overview of FinTech Patents: Infographic by Relecura: http://letstalkpayments.com/overview-of-fintech-patents-infographic-by-relecura/ (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
Matt Richtel, Are Patents Good or Bad for Electronic Commerce?(August 28, 1998),
https://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/08/cyber/cyberlaw/28law.html.
Robert Sachs, A Survey of Patent Invalidation Since Alice (Jan. 13, 2015): http://www.law360.com/articles/604235/a-survey-of-patent-invalidations-since-alice.
Rob Merges, Symposium: Go ask Alice—what can you patent after Alice v. CLS Bank?,(June. 20, 2014): http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-go-ask-alice-what-can-you-patent-after-alice-v-cls-bank/.
Stuart P. Meyer, FEDERAL CIRCUIT CREATES NEW (NON-ALICE) HURDLE FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS (Jun. 29, 2015): http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/06/federal-circuit-creates-new-non-alice-hurdle-for-software-patents.html.
Susan Decker, Elizabeth Dexheimer, Wall Street Is Trying to Beat Silicon Valley at Its Own Game: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/disrupting-banks-go-see-what-they-re-doing-at-the-patent-office (last visited Mar. 26, 2016).
Timothy B. Lee, Software Is Just Math. Really (Aug. 11, 2011): http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/08/11/software-is-just-math-really/#1a76acc74d74.
Timothy B. Lee, Software patents are crumbling, thanks to the Supreme Court (Sep. 12, 2014): http://www.vox.com/2014/9/12/6138483/software-patents-are-crumbling-thanks-to-the-supreme-court.
其他
U.S Patent Trademark Office, White Paper -Automated Business Methods - Section III Class 705(2000).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106(I): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106(II): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.htm (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
USTPO, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v.Kappos: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-announcements/interim-guidance-determining-subject-matter-eligibility-process-claims(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
USPTO, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
USPTO, July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf(last visitd Mar. 26, 2016).
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/trial_practice_guide_48756.pdf (last visitd Mar. 26, 2016). |
