Legal 500
  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions

    • Submissions

    • Research+

    • Future Lawyers

  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers

    • Barristers’ Sets

    • Networks

    • Interview with…

  • In-House

    • In-House Content

    • GC Powerlist

  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products

    • Legal Business

    • News & Developments

    • About us

      • Legal 500

      • FAQs

      • Marketing

      • Careers

      • Contact us

  • Comparative Guides

  • Events

  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500

  • FAQs

  • Marketing

  • Careers

  • Contact us

  • Deutschland DE

  • Paris FR

  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions

    • Submissions

    • Research+

    • Future Lawyers

  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers

    • Barristers’ Sets

    • Networks

    • Interview with…

  • In-House

    • In-House Content

    • GC Powerlist

  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products

    • Legal Business

    • News & Developments

    • About us

      • Legal 500

      • FAQs

      • Marketing

      • Careers

      • Contact us

  • Comparative Guides

  • Events

  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500

  • FAQs

  • Marketing

  • Careers

  • Contact us

  • Deutschland DE

  • Paris FR

© 2026 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved

Registered company in England & Wales No. 02427356 VAT GB 321 5727 22

Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG

  • Data Protection policies
  • Cookies Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Article

    What Is An "Abstract Idea"? Who's On First? Who's On Second? - IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 7, July 2012 (Part 1)

    In the wake of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs (see IP Update, Vol. 14, No. 6) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit once again wrestled with the issue of when a patent claim is directed to a non-patent eligible "abstract idea."
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    McDermott Will & Emery
    McDermott Will & Emery
  • Article

    IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 3, March 2012 - Part 1

    Speaking through Justice Breyer, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) held that claims directed to a blood-testing method are invalid because they do not define patent-eligible subject matter.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    McDermott Will & Emery
    McDermott Will & Emery

Showing 41–42 of 42 results

Previous