| 翻訳と辞書 |
| State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.
''State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.'', 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), also referred to as ''State Street'' or ''State Street Bank'', was a 1998 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the patentability of business methods. ''State Street'' for a time established the principle that a claimed invention was eligible for protection by a patent in the United States if it involved some practical application and, in the words of the ''State Street'' opinion, "it produces a useful, concrete and tangible result."
With the 2008 Federal Circuit decision ''In re Bilski'',〔545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).〕 however, the useful-concrete-tangible test was jettisoned. According to the Federal Circuit's ''Bilski'' opinion, the "'useful, concrete and tangible result inquiry' is inadequate," and the portions of the ''State Street'' decision relying on this inquiry are no longer of any effect under US patent law. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit in ''Bilski v. Kappos''.〔561 U.S. 593 (2010).〕
== Background ==
On March 9, 1993, Signature Financial Group, Inc. was granted U.S. Patent 5,193,056〔 Named inventor Todd Boes did not originate the hub-and-spokes technique. It had been devised earlier, but Boes developed it for computerized use at Signature Financial Group. The actual programming, apparently, was performed by others under his direction.〕 entitled "Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration". The "spokes" were mutual funds that pool their assets in a central "hub". When this is done in connection with certain daily accounting procedures in accordance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, the profits are passed through to the shareholders for tax purposes, without being first subject to corporate income tax, as they otherwise would be.〔When the regulations are satisfied, IRS treats the mutual fund as if it were a partnership rather than a corporation or trust.〕 The procedures are so complex that they could not be performed, in the time interval IRS regulations allow, without using a programmed digital computer.〔The IRS regulations require a daily allocation of gains and losses to "partners" in the fund within the eight hours from 4 p.m. when the New York Stock Exchange closes and 12 midnight.〕
It has been pointed out that the patent claim comprises means for performing steps that are the requirements specified in an Internal Revenue Service regulation for avoiding taxes〔In oral argument, Judge Rich asked counsel for the patentee whether the patent was not one directed to a "tax dodge."〕 on a partnership.〔() ''Scope-of-Protection Problems with Patents and Copyrights on Methods of Doing Business''], 10 {smallcaps|Fordham Intel. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 105, 121 (1999) and Appendix A. The foregoing Appendix is a table showing the elements of the claim and the corresponding parts of the regulations, side by side. The following chart is based on that table.〕 This chart illustrates how the wording of the patent claim corresponds to the US tax statute and regulations. The patent is thus, in effect, one on compliance with US tax law.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|