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
July 18, 2025
In the News
Matt Caplan Featured for Arrival to Foley – 'It's an exciting time'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Matt Caplan is highlighted across press for his recent arrival to the firm's San Francisco office.
July 18, 2025
In the News
David Rosen on FDA's CRL Release – 'It hasn't happened in the past'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Rosen commented on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to publish a package of complete response letters to pharmaceutical companies in the PharmaVoice article, "Why FDA’s CRL release could open the door to lawsuits against pharma."
July 18, 2025
In the News
Aaron Maguregui Highlights Potential Compliance Concerns in Pre-Tax Wellness Claims
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui commented in The New York Times article, "Hot Dogs for Insomnia? A Kennedy Aide's Start-Up Can Get You a Tax Break," sharing insight on the growing use of medical necessity letters to support tax-advantaged purchases of wellness products.