Strong support exists in many areas for the current status of patent jurisprudence

In addition to providing clarity and stability, many respondents claimed the current law also represents a general improvement to the patent system.137 One computer industry association, for instance, stated that, “[t]he current state of patentable subject matter jurisprudence is working well and should be retained.”138 Another industry association said its members “believe that current 101 jurisprudence has resulted in a healthier patent system.”139 A computer company likewise asserted that “the state of the law [is] amply predictable” and noted that it had not encountered a situation “where the viability of a commercial transaction [had] been significantly hampered by uncertainty” caused by the current law.14 Other groups focused on innovation benefits. A life sciences organization claimed that the Supreme Court’s decisions are “essential for fostering scientific research and innovation” and “have demonstrably clarified essential boundaries on subject matter eligibility.”141 A public interest group praised the Supreme Court’s decisions, stating that the “[c]urrent patent eligibility jurisprudence is faithful to the Constitution, the Patent Act, and the public’s interest in a patent system that promotes more innovation than it deters.”142