Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 68

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

1 

BREYER, 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 BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins as to

Part II, concurring in the judgment. 

I 
I agree with JUSTICE STEVENS that a “general method of
engaging  in  business  transactions”  is  not  a  patentable 
“process” within the meaning of 35 U. S. C. §101.  Ante, at 
2  (STEVENS,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).  This  Court  has 
never  before  held  that  so-called  “business  methods”  are 
patentable,  and,  in  my  view,  the  text,  history,  and  pur-
poses  of  the  Patent  Act  make  clear  that  they  are  not. 
Ante, at 10–47.  I would therefore decide this case on that 
ground, and I join JUSTICE STEVENS’ opinion in full. 

I  write  separately,  however,  in  order  to  highlight  the
substantial agreement among many Members of the Court
on many of the fundamental issues of patent law raised by 
this case.  In light of the need for clarity and settled law in
this highly technical area, I think it appropriate to do so. 

II 
In  addition  to  the  Court’s  unanimous  agreement  that
the claims at issue here are unpatentable abstract ideas, it 
is  my  view  that  the  following  four  points  are  consistent