Research On Patent-eligibility Of FinTech-Related Business Methods

We here discuss the patent-eligibility of FinTech-related business methods.If business methods are qualified subject matter has been one of patent law's hottest issues for centuries and the instruction is far from clear now.Underpinned by blockchain technology,the rapid progress of FinTech-related business methods exerts much urgency to extricate the criteria from its current quagmire.We demonstrate that FinTech-related business methods deserve patent protection.Both the cost-benefit analysis from the Economics of Law and the transaction cost analysis from the Institutional Economics give positive signals showing that patent protection of FinTech-related business methods will improve the resource allocation efficiency and regulation efficiency of the whole society.We argue that the "markedly different" criterion is the most reasonable option to perform subject-matter eligibility analysis regarding FinTech-related business methods.Among the existing standards,the categorical exclusion or inclusion of business methods rejects or accepts all related patent applications without any other concerns,which is oversimplified,crude and unreasonable;the "concrete,useful,and tangible result" inquiry considers that a concrete,useful and tangible result,including digital numbers,renders an invention statutory subject matter,which directs to an extremely low and indistinguishable bar that almost all FinTech-related business methods can pass;a claimed process satisfies the machine-or-transformation test if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus,or transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing,but it is inapplicable to FinTech-related business methods due to their non-transformative nature;the Alice framework treats statutory patent-ineligible concepts as prior arts,and searches for an inventive concept in the remaining elements,which is so demanding that it has been a death sentence for business method and software patents after being established;the technical character requirement holds that having technical character is an implicit requirement to be met by an invention,but technical character per se is vague and unclear which giving rise to inconsistences in application;and the "markedly different" criterion determines if significant differences exist between the invention and the well-understood,routine,conventional activities that are previously engaged in by those in the field,which possesses essential clarity,universality and flexibility.Further following precedents'direction,we conclude that it is the most promising standard to ride subject-matter eligibility analysis out of its morass.