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
August 19, 2025
In the News
Gustavo Resendiz Featured in Q&A on Secondary Market Momentum – 'Investors want liquidity'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Gustavo Resendiz is featured in the Crunchbase News Q&A, "Why Secondary Funds Still Can’t Keep Up With Investor Demand," lending insight into the accelerating investor momentum towards secondary transactions.
August 18, 2025
In the News
David Simon Coauthors Piece on Empowering Lawyers as Strategic Business Partners
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Simon coauthored The Agenda article, "Turn Your Corporate Lawyer into a Strategic Weapon," published by Financial Times.
August 15, 2025
In the News
Gregory Husisian on Voluntary Disclosures to Customs – 'Importing has never been riskier'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Gregory Husisian authored the SupplyChainBrain article, "Best Practices for Making Voluntary Disclosures to Customs," sharing insight on this vital strategy for companies looking to mitigate risk from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.