{"id":319,"date":"2009-08-05T16:29:37","date_gmt":"2009-08-05T22:29:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=319"},"modified":"2009-08-05T17:21:30","modified_gmt":"2009-08-05T23:21:30","slug":"oral-argument-of-parker-v-flook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=319","title":{"rendered":"Oral Argument of Parker v. Flook"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Parker v. Flook<\/span> was the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s second\u00a0chance to assess\u00a035 USC section 101 in the context of a computer related claim.\u00a0 The opinion was written by Justice Stevens and he was joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell.\u00a0 A dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Stewart, Chief Justice Burger, and Justice Rehnquist.\u00a0 A few years later in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Diamond v. Diehr<\/span>, Justices White and Powell would switch sides and\u00a0join Justice Stewart, Chief Justice Burger, and Justice Rehnquist (<em>i.e.<\/em>, the dissent in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Flook<\/span>), leaving Justices Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun as the dissent.\u00a0 Notably, Justice Stevens is the only member still serving on the Court.\u00a0 He joined Justice Breyer and Justice Souter in dissenting in the dismissal of the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Labcorp v. Metabolite<\/span> case in 2006.<\/p>\n<p>As a patent attorney who admittedly favors patent protection for software and business methods, it is difficult to read the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Parker v. Flook<\/span> decision and find any logic in it.\u00a0 The opinion tries to inject elements of 35 USC section 103 into the 35 USC section 101 analysis.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Court and the public would be better-served to\u00a0let sections 102, 103, and 112 serve their intended purposes rather than trying to\u00a0make a complete analysis of patentability under 35 USC section 101. \u00a0With the Court&#8217;s recent decision in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">KSR v. Teleflex<\/span> there\u00a0are ample constraints on claiming obvious uses of a natural phenomenon.\u00a0 And, with the Federal Circuit&#8217;s cases concerning section 112, there is ample protection against overbreadth in claiming.\u00a0 One would hope that the Court will take the\u00a0opportunity with the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Bilski v. Doll<\/span> case to clarify the law by expressly overruling <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Parker v. Flook<\/span>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Parker v. Flook<\/span> oral argument here [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/08\/Parker v Flook.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 You can read the decision here [<a href=\"http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/us\/437\/584\/case.html\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Parker v. Flook was the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s second\u00a0chance to assess\u00a035 USC section 101 in the context of a computer related claim.\u00a0 The opinion was written by Justice Stevens and he was joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell.\u00a0 A dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Stewart, Chief Justice Burger, and Justice Rehnquist.\u00a0 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=319"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":333,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319\/revisions\/333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}