Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

outside  of  §101’s  scope  is  further  undermined  by  the  fact 
that federal law explicitly contemplates the existence of at 
least  some  business  method  patents.    Under  35  U. S. C. 
§273(b)(1), if a patent-holder claims infringement based on
“a method in [a] patent,” the alleged infringer can assert a
defense  of  prior  use.    For  purposes  of  this  defense  alone, 
“method”  is  defined  as  “a  method  of  doing  or  conducting
business.”  §273(a)(3).  In  other  words,  by  allowing  this 
defense the statute itself acknowledges that there may be
business  method  patents.    Section  273’s  definition  of 
“method,”  to  be  sure,  cannot  change  the  meaning  of  a 
prior-enacted  statute.    But  what  §273  does  is  clarify  the 
understanding that a business method is simply one kind
of “method” that is, at least in some circumstances, eligible 
for patenting under §101.

A  conclusion  that  business  methods  are  not  patentable 
in  any  circumstances  would  render  §273  meaningless.
This  would  violate  the  canon  against  interpreting  any 
statutory  provision  in  a  manner  that  would  render  an-
other  provision  superfluous.  See  Corley  v.  United  States, 
556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 9).  This principle, of 
course,  applies  to  interpreting  any  two  provisions  in  the 
U. S. Code, even when Congress enacted the provisions at
different  times.  See,  e.g.,  Hague  v.  Committee  for  Indus-
trial Organization, 307 U. S. 496, 529–530 (1939) (opinion 
of Stone, J.).  This established rule of statutory interpreta-
tion  cannot  be  overcome  by  judicial  speculation  as  to  the 
subjective  intent  of  various  legislators  in  enacting  the
subsequent  provision.    Finally,  while  §273  appears  to 
leave  open  the  possibility  of  some  business  method  pat-
ents,  it  does  not  suggest  broad  patentability  of  such 
claimed inventions. 

2 
Interpreting  §101  to  exclude  all  business  methods  sim-
ply  because  business  method  patents  were  rarely  issued