Hunter, Rose Published in Intellectual Property Magazine About Overcoming Challenges to Patent Eligibility
16 July 2020
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
24 April 2024
In the News
Judith Waltz Discusses Nursing Home Staffing Mandate, Potential Legal Challenges
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Judith Waltz offers insight on a new nursing home staffing rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its impact on the industry in the Bloomberg Law article, “Nursing Homes, HHS on Collision Path Over Staffing Mandate.”
23 April 2024
In the News
David Sanders Discusses Lessons Learned from General Counsel Leadership Program
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Sanders recently joined a panel discussion with members of The Vanguard Network’s General Counsels Advisory Group to discuss the evolving role of the general counsel.
23 April 2024
In the News
Claire Marblestone Discusses HHS Final Rule on Protected Health Information Disclosure
Foley & Lardner LLP Claire Marblestone assessed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ final rule that bars providers, health plans, and other entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act from disclosing protected health information in a Healthcare Dive article.