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
26 March 2024
In the News
Foley Made ‘Great Strides’ in 2023 as Firm Sees Record Revenue and Profits
In the article, “Diversity of Practices Helped Foley Grow Revenue by 8.1%, Profits Per Equity Partner by 11.5%” The American Lawyer notes that strong demand across each of Foley’s major strategic sectors – including energy, health care and life sciences, innovative technology, and manufacturing – led to record growth.
22 March 2024
In the News
Foley LA Prepares Boys & Girls Clubs Students for Youth of the Year Competition
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Nicholas Gross and associates Trevor Mullin, Kathryn Petrosky, Jordan Smiley, Savannah Levin, Troy Tessem, and Tam Wheat helped prepare students from the Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Los Angeles for the annual Youth of the Year competition.
22 March 2024
In the News
Kyle Faget Quoted on FDA’s Approach to AI in Digital Health
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Kyle Faget is quoted in the Modern Healthcare article, “FDA is digital health’s gatekeeper amid AI boom.”