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
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 14: EU Commission Scraps SEP Draft Regulations; Senate Commerce to Explore Spectrum Auction Delays; House Science Seeks Review of Commercial Space Licensing
- Vidal Amicus Asks CAFC to Correct ED of TX Jury Instructions on Eligibility
- Revised Fair Use Ruling Finds No Transformative Use in Developing AI Search Tool
- Patently Strategic Podcast: Dealing with Rejection
- IPWatchdog Unleashed: Patents and the Future of the USPTO in Trump’s Second Term