Diamond v. Diehr | |
---|---|
Argued October 14, 1980 Decided March 3, 1981 | |
Full case name | Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Diehr, et al. |
Citations | 450 U.S. 175 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari granted, 445 U.S. 926 |
Holding | |
A machine controlled by a computer program was patentable. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
Laws applied | |
35 U.S.C. § 101 |
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that controlling the execution of a physical process, by running a computer program did not preclude patentability of the invention as a whole.[1][2] The high court reiterated its earlier holdings that mathematical formulas in the abstract could not be patented, but it held that the mere presence of a software element did not make an otherwise patent-eligible machine or process patent ineligible. Diehr was the third member of a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions on the patent-eligibility of computer software related inventions.[3]