March 23, 2012
To some stakeholders, the Supreme Court’s Mayo ruling represents a sea of change. To others, the Court finally provided clarity on the Section 101 analysis. Finnegan partner Erika H. Arner stated, “Unfortunately I think this framework will not help clarify the Section 101 analysis. I think lower courts and the patent office will struggle with the subjective inquiry of what is ‘enough’ to render a claim patentable.” Ms. Arner also saw “a shift in the Court’s thinking.” She said, “Rather than emphasizing, as it usually does, that Congress intended the scope of patent protection to be as broad as possible, the Mayo Court focuses on the judge-made exclusions from patentable subject matter, reasoning that narrower patent protection may better promote innovation. This apparent shift by the full Court may signal the need for clarification by Congress.”
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
Award/Ranking
Managing IP Americas Awards 2024: Finnegan Shortlisted for Nine Awards, Including Firm of the Year
March 12, 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.