Diamond v. Diehr
| Diamond v. Diehr | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 14, 1980 Decided March 3, 1981 | |
| Full case name | Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Diehr, et al. |
| Citations | 450 U.S. 175 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari granted, 445 U.S. 926 |
| Holding | |
| A machine controlled by a computer program was patentable. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| 35 U.S.C. § 101 | |
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that controlling the execution of a physical process, by running a computer program did not preclude patentability of the invention as a whole. The high court reiterated its earlier holdings that mathematical formulas in the abstract could not be patented, but it held that the mere presence of a software element did not make an otherwise patent-eligible machine or process patent ineligible. Diehr was the third member of a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions on the patent-eligibility of computer software related inventions.