Parker v. Flook

Parker v. Flook
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 25, 1978
Decided June 22, 1978
Full case nameParker, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Flook
Citations437 U.S. 584 (more)
98 S. Ct. 2522; 57 L. Ed. 2d 451; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 122; 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193
Case history
PriorIn re Flook, 559 F.2d 21 (C.C.P.A. 1977); cert. granted, 434 U.S. 1033 (1978).
SubsequentDiamond v. Diehr, Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Holding
A mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application is not novel.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
DissentStewart, 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]

  1. ^ a b Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978).
  2. ^ MICHAEL SANZO. Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.: Gene-Based Assays in the Wake of Mayo. 35 Biotechnology Law Report 89 Number 3, 2016.
  3. ^ The other two cases were: Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), and Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).