December 16, 2011
After the high court’s oral arguments in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., some experts have expressed concern that the Court might incorporate novelty and obviousness considerations into Section 101 analysis, while others have thought that U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. convinced the Court that unworthy patents are best weeded out under Sections 102 and 103 of the patent statutes. Finnegan partner Denise W. DeFranco, who authored the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) brief in Mayo, has taken the middle ground, saying “I’m worried so many of the justices seemed interested in putting Section 102 and 103 concerns into 101…but I’m optimistic that the Court will continue to see these types of claims as patent eligible.’’
Media Mention
Women in Business Law Americas Awards 2024: Three Finnegan Attorneys Shortlisted
April 7, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan and BMW Group Successfully Demolish Non-Practicing Entity NorthStar’s Efforts
April 3, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.