Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 58.0

38 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

that the 1999 Congress would never have enacted §273 if 
it had foreseen that this Court would rely on the provision 
as  a  basis  for  concluding  that  business  methods  are  pat-
entable.  Section 273 is a red herring; we should be focus-
ing our attention on §101 itself.   

VI 

The  constitutionally  mandated  purpose  and  function  of 
the  patent  laws  bolster  the  conclusion  that  methods  of 
doing business are not “processes” under §101. 

The  Constitution  allows  Congress  to  issue  patents  “[t]o
promote  the  Progress  of  . . .  useful  Arts,”  Art. I,  §8,  cl. 8. 
This  clause  “is  both  a  grant  of  power  and  a  limitation.” 
Graham, 383 U. S., at 5.  It “reflects a balance between the 
need  to  encourage  innovation  and  the  avoidance  of  mo-
nopolies which stifle competition without any concomitant 
advance  in  the  ‘Progress  of  Science  and  useful  Arts.’ ” 
Bonito  Boats,  489  U. S.,  at  146.    “This  is  the  standard 
expressed  in  the  Constitution  and  it  may  not  be  ignored.
And  it  is  in  this  light  that  patent  validity  ‘requires  refer-
ence  to  [the]  standard  written  into  the  Constitution.’ ”  
Graham, 383 U. S., at 6 (quoting Great Atlantic & Pacific 
Tea  Co.  v.  Supermarket  Equipment  Corp.,  340  U. S.  147, 
154  (1950)  (Douglas,  J.,  concurring)  (emphasis  deleted));
see  also  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.  218,  241–242  (1832)
(explaining  that  patent  “laws  which  are  passed  to  give
effect  to  this  [constitutional]  purpose  ought,  we  think,  to
be  construed  in  the  spirit  in  which  they  have  been
made”).44 
—————— 

44 See  also  Quanta  Computer,  Inc.  v.  LG  Electronics,  Inc.,  553  U. S. 
617,  626  (2008)  (“ ‘[T]he  primary  purpose  of  our  patent  laws  is  not  the 
creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is “to promote
the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts” ’ ”  (quoting  Motion  Picture 
Patents  Co.  v.  Universal  Film  Mfg.  Co.,  243  U. S.  502,  511  (1917))); 
Pfaff  v.  Wells  Electronics,  Inc.,  525  U. S.  55,  63  (1998)  (“[T]he  patent
system represents a carefully crafted bargain that encourages both the
creation  and  the  public  disclosure  of  new  and  useful  advances  in