Hunter, Rose Published in Intellectual Property Magazine About Overcoming Challenges to Patent Eligibility
16 July 2020
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
25 July 2024
In the News
Donald Schroeder on Groff – ‘Supreme Court decision is inviting a more fact-based analysis’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Donald Schroeder assessed the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in a religious accommodation case as it returns to the district court in the Law360 article, “A Year After High Court Spotlight, Groff Case Still A Bellwether.”
24 July 2024
In the News
Louis Lehot Featured in Q&A on How Startups Can Prepare for IPO
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Louis Lehot features in the Q&A, "How startups can get in top shape for an IPO, according to Silicon Valley lawyer Louis Lehot," part of Business Insider's Road to IPO' series.
24 July 2024
In the News
Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Patent Cap in Drug Pricing – ‘Hard to predict if this will make a difference’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Courtenay Brinckerhoff discussed a recent bill passed in the U.S. Senate aimed at lowering drug prices by limiting the number of patents that can be asserted in cases over biosimilars in the Law360 article, “Patent Cap In Drug Pricing Bill Seen As Having Muted Effect.”