Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw v. David J. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 · Decided June 28, 2010 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw v. David J. Kappos was decided on June 28, 2010 unanimously (9–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Patentability of computer processes” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 561 U.S. 593 · 130 S. Ct. 3218 · 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 · 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521
- Docket number
- 08-964
- Decided
- June 28, 2010
- Argued
- November 9, 2009
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Patentability of computer processes
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- 35-101
- Type of law
- Infrequently litigated statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Special concurrence |
Full case caption
Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw v. David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office
SCDB identifiers: case 2009-089, docket 2009-089-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Patentability of computer processes”
- Microsoft Corporation v. I4I Limited Partnership
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. Lg Electronics, Inc.
- Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp.
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l
- Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
- Diamond v. Bradley
Cases on the same legal provision: 35-101
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission
- Hemi Group, LLC and Kai Gachupin v. City of New York
- Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Irvin Muchnick
- United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Francisco J. Espinosa
- Jerry N. Jones v. Harris Associates L. P.
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error