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
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- WTO Announces COVID Vaccine Waiver Deal That Virtually No One Wants
- The Biden Administration’s Neutrality Position on SEP Remedies is a Good Move
- Mossoff-Barnett Comment on EU Commission’s Call for SEP Evidence Spotlights Misconceptions About FRAND Obligations
- Misusing March-in Rights for Price Control: A Dagger to the Heart of Small Companies
Recent Posts
- USPTO Report Underscores Split on State of U.S. Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- CAFC Sends Centripetal Back to Drawing Board in Case with Cisco Due to Judge’s Stock
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 24: Congressional Hearings Focus on PTAB Reforms, French Regulators Accept Google’s Copyright Payment Framework, and DOJ Announces Settlement with Meta Over Biased Ad Algorithm
- Sotera Declarations Less Likely Given Vidal Memo on PTAB Discretion