Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND 

DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 08–964.  Argued November 9, 2009—Decided June 28, 2010 

Petitioners’ patent application seeks protection for a claimed invention 
that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy mar-
ket can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes.  The key 
claims are claim 1, which describes a series of steps instructing how 
to  hedge  risk,  and  claim  4,  which  places  the  claim  1  concept  into  a 
simple  mathematical  formula.    The  remaining  claims  explain  how 
claims 1 and 4 can be applied to allow energy suppliers and consum-
ers  to  minimize  the  risks  resulting  from  fluctuations  in  market  de-
mand.  The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds
that the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus, merely 
manipulates  an  abstract  idea,  and  solves  a  purely  mathematical 
problem.  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences agreed and 
affirmed.  The Federal Circuit, in turn, affirmed.  The en banc court 
rejected  its  prior  test  for  determining  whether  a  claimed  invention 
was  a  patentable  “process”  under  Patent  Act,  35  U. S. C.  §101—i.e., 
whether the invention produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible re-
sult,”  see,  e.g.,  State  Street Bank  &  Trust  Co  v.  Signature  Financial 
Group,  Inc.,  149  F. 3d  1368,  1373—holding  instead  that  a  claimed
process  is  patent  eligible  if:  (1)  it  is  tied  to  a  particular  machine  or 
apparatus,  or  (2)  it  transforms  a  particular  article  into  a  different
state or thing.  Concluding that this “machine-or-transformation test”
is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a “process” under 
§101, the court applied the test and held that the application was not
patent eligible.   

Held: The judgment is affirmed.