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
- Unveiling The Untapped Potential of Brazil’s Solar Energy Market
- AI Armor: Learn How to Harness AI to Invest in Your Company’s Future
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 19: European Court Rejects Pablo Escobar Trademark; Federal Agencies Launch Anti-Competitive Healthcare Practices Portal; and Reddit Cracks Down on Copyright Infringement
- Thoughts on the USPTO’s NPRM: Not Bad But the Big Challenges Remain
- Patent Filings Roundup: Slow Week in PTAB and District Court, Ideahub Subsidiary Challenges Instituted; Patent Armory Continues the Offensive