Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

15 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

IV 

Because the text of §101 does not on its face convey the
scope of patentable processes, it is necessary, in my view, 
to  review  the  history  of  our  patent  law  in  some  detail. 
This approach yields a much more straightforward answer 
to  this  case  than  the  Court’s.  As  I  read  the  history,  it
strongly  supports  the  conclusion  that  a  method  of  doing
business is not a “process” under §101. 

I  am,  of  course,  mindful  of  the  fact  that  §101  “is  a  dy-
namic  provision  designed  to  encompass  new  and  unfore-
seen  inventions,”  and  that  one  must  therefore  view  his-
torical  conceptions  of  patent-eligible  subject  matter  at  an
appropriately high level of generality.  J. E. M. Ag Supply, 
534 U. S., at 135; see also Chakrabarty, 447 U. S., at 315– 
316.  But  it  is  nonetheless  significant  that  while  people 
have long innovated in fields of business, methods of doing 
business  fall  outside  of  the  subject  matter  that  has  “his-
torically  been  eligible  to  receive  the  protection  of  our
patent laws,” Diehr, 450 U. S., at 184, and likely go beyond
what the modern patent “statute  was enacted to protect,” 
Flook,  437  U. S.,  at  593.    It  is  also  significant  that  when
Congress  enacted  the  latest  Patent  Act,  it  did  so  against
the  background  of  a  well-settled  understanding  that  a 
series of steps for conducting business cannot be patented. 
These  considerations  ought  to  guide  our  analysis.    As 
Justice  Holmes  noted  long  ago,  sometimes,  “a  page  of 
history is worth a volume of logic.”  New York Trust Co. v. 
Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921). 

English Backdrop 

The  Constitution’s  Patent  Clause  was  written  against
the  “backdrop”  of  English  patent  practices,  Graham  v. 
John  Deere  Co.  of  Kansas  City,  383  U. S.  1,  5  (1966),  and 
early  American  patent  law  was  “largely  based  on  and
incorporated”  features  of  the  English  patent  system,  E.
Walterscheid,  To  Promote  the  Progress  of  Useful  Arts: