Parker v. Flook | |
---|---|
Argued April 25, 1978 Decided June 22, 1978 | |
Full case name | Parker, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Flook |
Citations | 437 U.S. 584 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | In re Flook, 559 F.2d 21 (C.C.P.A. 1977); cert. granted, 434 U.S. 1033 (1978). |
Subsequent | Diamond v. Diehr, Diamond v. Chakrabarty |
Holding | |
A mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application is not novel. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell |
Dissent | Stewart, joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
§ 101 of the Patent Act |
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), was a 1978 United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that an invention that departs from the prior art only in its use of a mathematical algorithm is patent eligible only if there is some other "inventive concept in its application."[1] The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part of the prior art, and the claim must be considered as a whole.[1] The exact quotation from the majority opinion is: "Respondent’s process is unpatentable under §101, not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention." "The fact that the algorithm may not have actually been known previously and that, when taken in combination with other claim elements, it might produce an invention that is novel and nonobvious, plays no part in the analysis."[2]
The case was argued on April 25, 1978 and was decided June 22, 1978. This case is the second member of the Supreme Court's patent-eligibility trilogy. [3]