Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

3 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

business does not qualify as a “process” under §101. 

I 

Although  the  Court  provides  a  brief  statement  of  facts, 
ante, at 1–4, a more complete explication may be useful for 
those  unfamiliar  with  petitioners’  patent  application  and
this case’s procedural history.

Petitioners’ patent application describes a series of steps
for managing risk amongst buyers and sellers of commodi-
ties.  The  general  method,  described  in  Claim  1,  entails 
“managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold 
by a commodity provider at a fixed price,” and consists of 
the following steps: 

“(a)  initiating a series of transactions between said 
commodity provider and consumers of said commodity
wherein  said  consumers  purchase  said  commodity  at
a  fixed  rate  based  upon  historical  averages,  said
fixed  rate  corresponding  to  a  risk  position  of  said 
consumers; 

“(b)  identifying  market  participants  for  said  com-
modity having a counter-risk position to said consum-
ers; and 

“(c)  initiating a series of transactions between said 
commodity provider and said market participants at a
second fixed rate such that said series of market par-
ticipant transactions balances the risk position of said 
series of consumer transactions.”  App. 19–20. 

Although  the  patent  application  makes  clear  that  the
“method  can  be  used  for  any  commodity  to  manage  con-
sumption  risk  in  a  fixed  bill  price  product,”  id.,  at  11,  it 
includes  specific  applications  of  the  method,  particularly 
in the field of energy, as a means of enabling suppliers and 
consumers  to  minimize  the  risks  resulting  from  fluctua-
tions in demand during specified time periods.  See id., at 
20–22.  Energy  suppliers  and  consumers  may  use  that