Parker v. Flook (1977)
- Docket
- 77-642
- Decided
- 1977-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the identification of a limited category of useful applications of a mathematical formula, such as its use in catalytic conversion processes, render a method based on such a formula-eligible for patent protection? Conclusion: No. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that, absent some other novel or inventive concept in the individual’s application for a patent, activity that results from the solution of a formula or algorithm cannot transform the formula from an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a dissent in which he argued that the method for updating alarm limits did not lose its eligibility for patent protection merely because one step in the method was not patentable. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist joined the dissenting opinion.