Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

1 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 08–964 
_________________ 

BERNARD L. BILSKI AND RAND A. WARSAW, 

PETITIONERS v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTEL- 

LECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2010] 

JUSTICE  STEVENS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE  BREYER,  and  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  join,  concur-
ring in the judgment. 

In the area of patents, it is especially important that the
law remain stable and clear.  The only question presented 
in  this  case 
is  whether  the  so-called  machine-or-
transformation  test  is  the  exclusive  test  for  what  consti-
tutes  a  patentable  “process”  under  35  U. S. C.  §101.    It 
would be possible to answer that question simply by hold-
ing,  as  the  entire  Court  agrees,  that  although  the  ma-
chine-or-transformation test is reliable in most cases, it is 
not the exclusive test. 

I  agree  with  the  Court  that,  in  light  of  the  uncertainty
that currently pervades this field, it is prudent to provide 
further  guidance.    But  I  would  take  a  different  approach.
Rather  than  making  any  broad  statements  about  how  to
define  the  term  “process”  in  §101  or  tinkering  with  the
bounds  of  the  category  of  unpatentable,  abstract  ideas,  I
would  restore  patent  law  to  its  historical  and  constitu-
tional moorings. 

For centuries, it was considered well established that a 
series  of  steps  for  conducting  business  was  not,  in  itself,