Diamond v. Diehr
United States Supreme Court
450 U.S. 175 (1980)
Diehr (applicant) filed a patent application that claimed a process for curing rubber. The process included mathematical calculations such as the well known Arrhenius equation. The patent examiner rejected the claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they were directed to mathematical formulas, and because the non-mathematical steps were necessary to the process and thus improper bases for patentability. Diehr appealed to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which reversed. Diamond (petitioner), the Commissioner of Patents, filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.