History of software patents that began with 'Parker versus Fluck Lawsuit'

In the 1970s, the American court judged that "software is a mathematical thing and can not give mathematics a patent," and we could not obtain a patent with software. However, with the 1978 Parker v. Fluck litigation, one step of a software pat- tern was engraved, which led to a path to accreditation of software patents. Ars Technica is pressing about software patents from Parker versus Fluck Lawsuit to 2018 as of now.

Why a 40 - year - old SCOTUS ruling against software patents still matters today | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/features/2018/06/why-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-didnt-last/

In the mid-1970s, Mr. Dale Fluck applied for a concept to monitor the process of catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons using computers. This software was to sound an alarm when the temperature, pressure, or other value became abnormal.

However, this patent application will not go through and you will win at trial. The Supreme Court stated about Mr. Fluke's patent application: "Only what is stated is for mathematical expressions to update alarm restrictions, and the appropriate safety margin on the catalyst conversion process, the weighting factor, how to select other variables There is no explanation "and concludes that it is not qualified to obtain a patent.

Mr. Fluke claimed that "a combination of industrial applications and computer programs, unexplained parts are separate patents", but the Supreme Court never accepted.

At that time, it was considered impossible for the patent application to be approved for software that had received the same treatment because it was judged that the formula can not be certified as a patent. Mr. Fluke filed a patent application six years ago in 1972, Gary Benson tried it from a patent application on how to convert a number from binary to decimal, but it was not approved. For this reason, the Supreme Court stated that as a comment on Mr. Fluke's patent application, "If we assume that algorithms and formulas are the same as natural laws, we can not accept it as a patent as Mr. Benson's case" .

However, there are problems with the judgment of Mr. Benson and Mr. Fluck by the court. In these decisions, algorithms and mathematical formulas were discussed rather than software or programs. Therefore, if you define that "algorithm" and "program" are exactly the same, these two applications will be dismissed without any debate.

In this way, as recognition of software patents is considered difficult, a patent for software filed by James Deer in 1981 was to be certified through a trial. Mr. Deer applied for a patent, "Computing the rubber curing process using a computer and dynamically calculating the optimum time to open a press machine for manufacturing rubber parts". The State's Supreme Court stated, "Those applied for in the patent are primarily based on patent protection of the process of curing synthetic rubber, and there is no restriction on the use of the mathematical solution used therein "Although software is not in the form of main, software has been approved as a patent.

Thereafter, the recognition of software patents will increase in the US, but the most important role played the role of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals , which was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and was founded (CAFC). Since then CAFC has effectively become the "Supreme Court of the Patent", a number of software patents have been granted.

In 1994, CAFC acknowledged a patent with the concept of "using anti-aliasing software to smooth the waveform of an oscilloscope". After doing this judgment, the fact that CAFC did not receive criticism from the Supreme Court, etc. will allow CAFC to recognize various patents developed into court as if it had tasted.

In 1998, CAFC decided to accept "a software-based strategy for managing mutual funds" as a patent. The CAFC will apply patents to the reasons for approval of this patent, "We will apply mathematical calculations to stock prices, mathematical algorithms, mathematical formulas or calculations to produce concrete results, , It will bring concrete and visible results. " However, the "alarm limit" applied in Mr. Fluke's patent in the 1970s was also a concrete and visible result, but because it was denied, the judgment of the CAFC is a matter of questioning many experts It was decided to give.

So far, the Supreme Court did not point out anything to the judgment of the CAFC, but in the 2000s it will be questioned the decision of the CAFC. In 2006, it pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled that the hearing would be tried again because the Supreme Court questioned the judgment on "a method for measuring the level of amino acids to judge the presence or absence of vitamin deficiency" certified by CAFC as a patent. Thereafter, although the Supreme Court did not say anything about this patent, it came to question the CAFC's decision for the first time.

After that, the Supreme Court will begin to positively "NO" to CAFC's decision in earnest. In 2010, the Supreme Court will request a reconsideration as the content of "Risk hedge of price fluctuations in commodity markets" approved by the CAFC as a patent is too abstract. After that, the CAFC judged the judgment to be appropriate, but the patent was invalidated by the Supreme Court. Then, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that "the patent applied is too abstract" to invalidate the judgment of the CAFC.

Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said, "Since the judgment in 2013, unfounded patent litigation has declined," even if you apply for an unfound patent, the Supreme Court It is said that patent applications are returning to legitimate because there is a possibility that it will be judged invalid at

However, the Supreme Court has no longer pointed out to the CAFC for about five years since 2013. For this reason, some experts are worried that "the expansion of software patents that have been held since the establishment of CAFC has been repeated and it will be time to grant unfound patent applications."