As far back as the 1970s, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the issue of whether patents should be granted for computer software and mathematical algorithms. The Supreme Court tailored the definition of patentable subject matter through three landmark decisions, which have colloquially become known as the “patent eligibility trilogy.” While the Court’s intention may have been to add clarity to a broad statute, the patent eligibility trilogy has long been the source of confusion and frustration among practitioners. It has become common when discussing these decisions for authors to take a cursory look at the underlying technical aspects of the cases and advance straight into the legal aspects. Conversely, this article will give a brief history of the well-documented legal progression in order to go in-depth exploring the technology behind the two contrasting holdings in Flookand Diehr in the aims of furthering the discussion and understanding of the Court’s precedent.
For the full article, see:
© 2018 Tyler Train