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).
- Laser Lessons: Has the Supreme Court Undermined Pioneering Laser Patents?
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, December 1: Senators Discuss AI and Intellectual Property; EU Report Finds 86 Million Fake Items Were Detained Last Year; USPTO Releases New China IP Rights Toolkit
- IP Goes Pop! – Lessons From Movies About Innovators
- Patently Strategic Podcast: Patenting Games
- Understanding IP Matters: Piracy or Policy? Maintaining U.S. Technology Leadership in the Digital Age