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
May 20, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Partner Antje Brambrink Shortlisted for Women in Business Law EMEA Award
May 13, 2026
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination
May 11, 2026
Award/Ranking
Associates Rank Finnegan “Best of the Best” in BTI Associate Satisfaction Survey
May 7, 2026
Announcement
Finnegan Partner Ningling Wang Becomes President of Licensing Executives Society International
May 4, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.