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.”
Commentary
Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects
June 30, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings
June 25, 2026
Press Release
BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret
June 23, 2026
Award/Ranking
Six Finnegan Partners Recognized in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers
June 22, 2026
Commentary
U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case
June 15, 2026
Award/Ranking
World Trademark Review Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners on its 2026 Global Leaders List
June 24, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.