Parker v. Flook

Background

An inventor sought a patent for a three-step method to update alarm limits used in catalytic chemical conversion processes: measure a process variable, apply a mathematical formula to compute a new limit, and adjust the alarm. The Patent Office rejected the claim because the only new feature was the mathematical formula. A federal appeals court had allowed the patent; the Government asked the high court to decide the legal question.

Reasoning

The central question was whether adding ordinary, routine steps after solving a formula makes an otherwise unpatentable mathematical idea into a patentable process. The Court assumed the formula was novel and useful but treated the formula as if it were part of the common tools of the trade. It held that conventional post-solution activity cannot transform an abstract mathematical principle into patentable subject matter. The Court explained that a valid patent requires a new and useful application beyond merely attaching routine steps to a formula, and it reversed the appeals court’s decision.

Real world impact

The ruling limits the ability to get patents when the only inventive element is a mathematical algorithm, even if tied to a specific industrial use or automated computer calculation. That narrows options for inventors and software developers seeking patent protection for formula-based methods used in monitoring and control systems. The Court noted that Congress, not the judiciary, is the proper body to change patent policy for computer programs.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Court improperly mixed questions about what counts as patentable subject matter with separate issues of novelty and inventiveness, and would have allowed the process patent as a whole to be considered patentable.