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
December 12, 2025
In the News
Foley Chairman and CEO Daljit Doogal Talks Firm Strategy and Growth, Featured in Media for Reelection
Foley & Lardner LLP Chairman and CEO Daljit Doogal is featured in The American Lawyer article, “Foley Board Taps Daljit Doogal for Second Term as Chair and CEO,” for his reelection to a second four-year term.
December 11, 2025
In the News
Carrie Hoffman Comments on SCOTUS Arbitration Jurisdiction Case
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Carrie Hoffman commented on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear an arbitration jurisdiction case in the Law360 article, "High Court Arb. Jurisdiction Case May Impact W&H Cases."
December 10, 2025
In the News
Charles Gass Quoted on Health Care Implications of Colorado AI Act
Foley & Lardner LLP senior counsel Charles Gass detailed Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Act and its implications for health providers in the ColoradoBiz article, “Colorado leads nation on AI healthcare regulations.”