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 8, 2025
In the News
Gregory Husisian and David Simon Uncover the High Stakes of Tariff Evasion
Foley & Lardner LLP partners Gregory Husisian and David Simon are featured for their insights on how the U.S. government is cracking down on tariff evaders in the Newsweek article, "America Is Making Billions From Catching 'Tariff Cheaters.'"
August 7, 2025
In the News
Kyle Faget Weighs in on Trump Pharma Tariffs
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Kyle Faget assessed the Trump administration's implementation of import tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry in the Pharma Life Sciences article, "Trump's pharma import tariffs threaten drug pricing, generics."
August 5, 2025
In the News
Aaron Maguregui on Health Data Sharing Plan – 'I would expect the FTC to be heavily involved'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui addressed a new health care data sharing initiative announced by the federal government in the Bloomberg Law article, "Digital Data-Sharing Plan Tests Limits of Health Privacy Rules."