March 20, 2012
Forbes
In an unanimous decision in Mayo Collaborative Services vs. Prometheus, the Supreme Court ruled that the patent issued to Prometheus Labs was invalid because it covered a law of nature, not an innovative new process. Finnegan partner Erika H. Arner commented on the decision stating, “Lower courts and the Patent Office will likely struggle with the question of what is ‘enough’ added subject matter.” Additionally, Ms. Arner said, “this latest ruling was surprising because recent patent decisions have been divided by courts and favored broader, rather than narrower patents. 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
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.