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
June 16, 2025
In the News
Gregory Husisian on Customs Compliance Violations – 'It's a sharply increased risk profile'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Gregory Husisian joined the SupplyChainBrain Thought Leaders episode, "Getting Ahead of Customs Compliance Violations," to describe the heightened risk environment importers face under the current trade and regulatory regime.
June 11, 2025
In the News
Foley Named Top US Firm for IP Lateral Hires by ManagingIP
Foley & Lardner LLP was named the top United States firm for intellectual property lateral partner hires in April and May 2025 based on data from ManagingIP's Talent Tracker.
June 10, 2025
In the News
Lynn Gandhi Sheds Light on Supreme Court Tax Ruling
Foley partner Lynn Gandhi commented in the Bloomberg Tax article "High Court’s Catholic Charities Case to Go Beyond Unemployment," sharing insight on the implications of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a tax case.