Montgomery Patent Attorneys & Lawyers for Hire

Key Takeaways

• Parker v. Flook (1978) established that mathematical algorithms alone are not patentable unless applied with an inventive concept beyond conventional steps.
• The case remains central to U.S. patent eligibility discussions under 35 U.S.C. §101, influencing later rulings such as Diamond v. Diehr, Mayo v. Prometheus, and Alice v. CLS Bank.
• The Supreme Court in Flook held that merely implementing a formula on a computer or using it in a known process does not make it patentable.
• Critics argue that Flook blurred the lines between §§ 101 and 103, improperly injecting “obviousness” considerations into subject-matter eligibility.
• The decision’s continuing impact i

...

A patent troll generally acquires or holds patents to pursue licensing revenue or infringement claims instead of making products. The label is informal and often disputed, so your response should focus on the patent, asserted claims, and claimant's conduct.

Key Takeaways

• Patent trolls usually seek revenue through patent licensing, settlements, or litigation rather than product sales.
• Not every nonpracticing entity, patent assertion entity, university, or inventor is a patent troll.
• Patent ownership and enforcement are generally lawful, but deceptive threats, bad-faith demands, or frivolous filings may create separ

...

Patent drawings visually disclose an invention's structure, operation, or ornamental appearance. The right figures can clarify your application, but missing features, inconsistent labels, or improper formatting can create objections and limit your ability to correct the filing.

Key Takeaways

• Include drawings whenever they are necessary to understand the invention, and include every drawing referenced in the application.
• Use clean, reproducible figures with the correct sheet size, margins, numbering, labels, and reference characters.
• Utility drawings explain structure and operation, while design drawings def

...