In response to a request for supplemental briefing from the Federal Circuit in Facebook v. Windy City Innovations, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently argued that its precedential panel opinions interpreting the America Invents Act (AIA) are entitled to Chevron deference, under which (essentially) courts must defer to an agency interpretation of a statute so long as the interpretation is reasonable. To the extent that this bid for Chevron deference is limited to procedural administrative Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) matters such as the one at issue in that case, (an interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) which relates to the USPTO Director’s ability to join a party in inter partes review [IPR]), it is arguably defensible. But to the extent that the agency claims (or plans to claim) that its precedential PTAB opinions are owed deference on issues of substantive patent law, it is likely incorrect.
- Tech Companies Should Strongly Consider Monetizing Their Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn
- (Not) Copyright Infringement: Is dbrand Infringing Nintendo’s IP?
- The Transmissibility of Information: How Your Trade Secrets Are Like a Virus
- Examining Antitrust Guidance on Cooperation in Fighting COVID-19
- Everything Depends on Coronavirus R&D Partnerships—Don’t Let the Critics Wreck Them
- ‘Unalienable Rights’: Understanding America’s Growing Disdain for Physical and Intangible Property
- This Week in Washington IP: Algorithmic Biases in AI, Federal Funding of R&D Programs and Digitalization-Driven Improvements to Energy Efficiency
- Supreme Court’s Booking.com Ruling Signals Uptick in Registration of ‘Generic.com’ Marks
- Sixth Annual Firecracker 25: My Best Songs of All Time
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 3: Busy Week for USPTO Announcements, New Vision Gaming Says PTAB Institution Process is Unconstitutional, Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Enbrel Patent Claims