Since U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu took office, I have observed, with admiration, how he has taken bold action to improve perceived problems in the patent system. The Director’s bold action has also caught the attention of members of the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, observed, “[n]or has the Director proven bashful about asserting these statutory powers to secure the [policy judgments] he seeks.”
Oil States Energy v. Greene’s Energy Group, 138 S.Ct. 1365, 1381 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).
I wonder, however, whether the law now permits Director Iancu to do something even bolder: create rules interpreting Section 101, at least within the limited context of the America Invents Act’s (AIA’s) post-grant review trials, such that courts may defer to the Director’s interpretation under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Recent Posts
- IP as a Force for Good: A Conversation with WIPO Director General Daren Tang
- Stewart Defends Hands-On Approach as Squires Confirmation Looms
- Former USPTO Solicitor Urges Squires Confirmation, Accuses Acting Director of Overreach
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 12: Novartis Loses Challenge to IRA Drug Price Negotiation Program; Lutnick Wants a Share of University IP Licensing; and EUIPO Announces First Copyright Conference
- Government Taking a Cut of University Royalties Would Threaten Bayh-Dole’s ROI