Hunter, Rose Published in Intellectual Property Magazine About Overcoming Challenges to Patent Eligibility
July 16, 2020
Intellectual Property Magazine
Partner Paul Hunter and Senior Counsel Daniel Rose were published in Intellectual Property Magazine. Their article, “Moving Target,” discussed approaches to overcoming challenges to patent eligibility in light of recent jurisprudence and inconsistent policy.
“Patent eligibility defines what can be patented. Over the past decade, the standard for such eligibility in the US has been a moving target with courts and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) lacking a consistent voice. Only recently have jurisprudence and the USPTO found similar approaches to assessing eligibility,” they wrote.
“After four decisions on patent subject matter eligibility in the early 2010s – Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice – the Supreme Court of the US has sat on the sidelines and let the Federal Circuit and the USPTO hash out the details of this developing area of law. The Justices have declined to hear any eligibility questions this term, even rejecting an appeal from the Federal Circuit’s en banc denial for rehearing in Athena v Mayo this past summer that resulted in nine separate opinions. Lower courts and the USPTO have struggled with confusing and inconsistent precedent, resulting in a lack of clarity and predictability.”
Read the full article here.
(Subscription required)
“Patent eligibility defines what can be patented. Over the past decade, the standard for such eligibility in the US has been a moving target with courts and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) lacking a consistent voice. Only recently have jurisprudence and the USPTO found similar approaches to assessing eligibility,” they wrote.
“After four decisions on patent subject matter eligibility in the early 2010s – Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice – the Supreme Court of the US has sat on the sidelines and let the Federal Circuit and the USPTO hash out the details of this developing area of law. The Justices have declined to hear any eligibility questions this term, even rejecting an appeal from the Federal Circuit’s en banc denial for rehearing in Athena v Mayo this past summer that resulted in nine separate opinions. Lower courts and the USPTO have struggled with confusing and inconsistent precedent, resulting in a lack of clarity and predictability.”
Read the full article here.
(Subscription required)
People
Related News
April 3, 2026
In the News
David Rosen Weighs in on FDA's Pharma PR Crackdown – 'Stick to the Data'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Rosen shared insights on the regulatory challenges pharmaceutical companies face when publicly communicating around new cancer therapies in the MM+M article, “When a podcast becomes promotion: Inside the FDA’s warning shot at ImmunityBio.”
April 2, 2026
In the News
Susan Poll Klaessy and Adrienne Walker Named Chair and Vice Chair of Foley’s Bankruptcy & Business Reorganizations Practice
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Susan Poll Klaessy was appointed chair of the firm’s global Bankruptcy & Business Reorganizations Practice Group. Partner Adrienne Walker will serve as vice chair, supporting the continued growth and strategic direction of the practice.
April 1, 2026
In the News
Foley Featured on Top 10 Sales of 2025 List by Golf Inc.
Foley & Lardner LLP advised on two transactions named among Golf Inc.’s Top 10 Sales of 2025.