![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Stuart Knight
Associate
Foley Hoag
Stuart Knight is an Associate with Foley Hoag. He has experience with complex commercial and intellectual property litigation and dispute resolution in both the U.S. and Europe, while at multi-national law firms in Boston, New York and London. Stuart has represented life sciences, health sector and technology clients in noteworthy complex commercial and patent infringement cases.
His intellectual property experience includes patent litigation covering a broad range of fields, including flow cytometry, sequencing, bioinformatics, polymer chemistry, medical devices, telecommunications, IT and semiconductors.
Stuart has advised and represented clients in multiple forums, including before U.S. District Courts, the PTAB, arbitration panels, U.K. High Court and Court of Appeal, and the EPO.
Recent Articles by Stuart Knight
Recent cases in the European Patent Office (EPO), the UK, and United States illustrate substantive differences between these jurisdictions as they continue to develop their inventive step/nonobviousness frameworks. In particular, the EPO and UK have recently provided guidance on a concept known as “plausibility,” i.e., whether the scope of the patent must be justified by the patentee’s technical contribution to the art in solving an identified problem. “If it is not plausible that the invention solves any technical problem then the patentee has made no technical contribution and the invention does not involve an inventive step.” Sandoz Limited v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ 472. That standard, however, is quite dissimilar from the United States’ statutory standard of whether “the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious…”