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
March 13, 2026
In the News
Chris Babcock and Chris Converse on Wave of Companies Moving to Texas
Foley & Lardner LLP partners Chrisopher Babcock and Chris Converse commented on the widening trend of companies reincorporating to Texas in the Houston Business Journal article, “Texas law changes could spark wave of corporate redomestication proposals."
March 12, 2026
In the News
Louis Lehot Explores M&A's Growing Blitzhire Phenomenon
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Louis Lehot authors article on the emergence of blitzhires in the Mergers & Acquisitions article, “Blitzhires: The New Fast-Moving M&A Deal.”
March 10, 2026
In the News
Aaron Maguregui Shares Insights on Shadow AI Risks in Health Care
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui was quoted in the Part B News article, “Do you need AI policy? Experts suggest guardrails as 'shadow AI' spreads,” discussing the emerging risks of unsanctioned 'shadow AI' use by clinicians and the need to establish robust AI governance.