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.
Business
- Groups on Both Sides Slam USTR Support for Delaying IP Waiver Extension Pending ITC Investigation
- USPTO Ramps Up Efforts to Promote Women Entrepreneurs
- Sign the Prenup: What Brands Can Learn From the Kanye West/Adidas IP Breakup
- Lessons from the Levandowski Case: Reimagining the Exit Interview as Risk Management
- Advocating for Ethics-Driven Regulation for Blockchain Technologies
Recent Posts
- What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
- A Dog’s Day in Court: Implications of the ‘Bad Spaniels’ Arguments on Parody Determinations and Noncommercial Use
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 24: Non-DOCX Fee Delayed Further; SCOTUS Petition Says Hirshfeld’s Review of PTAB Decision Violated Federal Vacancies Reform Act; Moderna CEO Grilled by Senate Committee over COVID Vaccine Price Hike
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers