Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

present in patent law, between stimulating innovation by 
protecting  inventors  and  impeding  progress  by  granting
patents when not justified by the statutory design. 

III 
Even though petitioners’ application is not categorically
outside  of  §101  under  the  two  broad  and  atextual  ap-
proaches the Court rejects today, that does not mean it is
a  “process”  under  §101.  Petitioners  seek  to  patent  both
the  concept  of  hedging  risk  and  the  application  of  that 
concept  to  energy  markets.  App.  19–20.    Rather  than 
adopting  categorical  rules  that  might  have  wide-ranging
and  unforeseen  impacts,  the  Court  resolves  this  case
narrowly  on  the  basis  of  this  Court’s  decisions  in  Benson, 
Flook, and Diehr, which show that petitioners’ claims are
not  patentable  processes  because  they  are  attempts  to
patent  abstract  ideas.    Indeed,  all  members  of  the  Court 
agree  that  the  patent  application  at  issue  here  falls  out-
side of §101 because it claims an abstract idea. 

In Benson, the Court considered whether a patent appli-
cation  for  an  algorithm  to  convert  binary-coded  decimal 
numerals  into  pure  binary  code  was  a  “process”  under 
§101.  409 U. S., at 64–67.  The Court first explained that 
“ ‘[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an
original  cause;  a  motive;  these  cannot  be  patented,  as  no
one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.’ ”  Id., at 
67 (quoting Le Roy, 14 How., at 175).  The Court then held 
the application at issue was not a “process,” but an unpat-
entable  abstract  idea.  “It  is  conceded  that  one  may  not
patent  an  idea.  But  in  practical  effect  that  would  be  the
result if the formula for converting  .  . . numerals to pure
binary numerals were patented in this case.”  409 U. S., at 
71.  A  contrary  holding  “would  wholly  pre-empt  the 
mathematical  formula  and  in  practical  effect  would  be  a
patent on the algorithm itself.”  Id., at 72. 

In Flook, the Court considered the next logical step after