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 2, 2025
In the News
John Strom and Peter Tomasi Quoted on Shift in Environmental Policy
Foley & Lardner LLP attorneys John Strom and Peter Tomasi commented on changes to federal environmental rules in the Utility Dive article, "Federal agencies, including FERC and DOE, revoke environmental review rules."
June 30, 2025
In the News
Lynn Gandhi Assesses Midyear Takeaways from Major State and Local Tax Cases
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Lynn Gandhi is featured by Law360 for her takeaways on major state and local tax cases in the article, "Top State & Local Tax Cases Of 2025: Midyear Report."
June 27, 2025
In the News
Donald Schroeder Highlights FMCS Importance Amid Service's Uncertain Future
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Donald Schroeder described the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services' (FMCS) importance in the Law360 article, "As Feds' Bargaining Mediator Ails, New Services Emerge."