Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 26

6 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

moreover, that “[t]here is no suggestion in any of this early 
consideration of process patents that processes for organiz-
ing  human  activity  were  or  ever  had  been  patentable.” 
Id., at 972. 

Three judges wrote dissenting opinions, although two of 
those  judges  agreed  that  petitioners’  claim  is  not  patent
eligible.    Judge  Mayer  would  have  held  that  petitioners’ 
claim  “is  not  eligible  for  patent  protection  because  it  is 
directed to a method of conducting business.”  Id., at 998. 
He  submitted  that  “[t]he  patent  system  is  intended  to
protect  and  promote  advances  in  science  and  technology, 
not  ideas  about  how  to  structure  commercial  transac-
tions.” 
  “Affording  patent  protection  to  business
methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves
to  hinder  rather  than  promote  innovation[,]  and  usurps
that which rightfully belongs in the public domain.”  Ibid. 

Ibid.

Judge  Rader  would  have  rejected  petitioners’  claim  on 
the ground that it seeks to patent merely an abstract idea. 
Id., at 1011. 

Only  Judge  Newman  disagreed  with  the  court’s  conclu-
sion  that  petitioners’  claim  seeks  a  patent  on  ineligible
subject  matter.  Judge  Newman  urged  that  the  en  banc 
court’s  machine-or-transformation  test  ignores  the  text 
and history of §101, id., at 977–978, 985–990, is in tension 
with  several  of  decisions  by  this  Court,  id.,  at  978–985, 
and  the  Federal  Circuit,  id.,  at  990–992,  and  will  invali-
date thousands of patents that were issued in reliance on 
those decisions, id., at 992–994. 

II 

Before explaining in more detail how I would decide this 
case,  I  will  comment  briefly  on  the  Court’s  opinion.    The 
opinion is less than pellucid in more than one respect, and, 
if misunderstood, could result in confusion or upset settled 
areas of the law.  Three preliminary observations may be 
clarifying.