Patently O

JULY 24, 2024

Although these decisions may not have as significant an impact in patent law as in other areas, they do pose interesting puzzles with respect to stare decisis as well as agency rulemaking and discretion that will provide many litigation opportunities going forward. Notably, the 2016 patent law case of Cuozzo v.

Stare Decisis 53

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Construction Laws 53

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 20, 2022

The court will hold the other case raising that question, Ham v. Breckon , pending the outcome in Jones. This week we have only one new relist: Thomas v.

Stare Decisis 135

Stare Decisis Court Lawyer Lawyers 135

Constitutional Law Reporter

JULY 30, 2024

By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

Stare Decisis 52

Stare Decisis Court Statute Construction 52

Patently O

JULY 2, 2024

261 (2016) provided the patent office with Chevron deference for its determinations regarding AIA trials, including issues such as its approach to claim construction. When reason why it is so big is that Chevron deference is premised on ambiguity in the statute. The Loper decision : In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U.S.

Stare Decisis 49

Stare Decisis Statute Construction Administrative Law 49

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 11, 2022

Both cases present the question whether statutes that authorize appellate courts to review final agency adjudications implicitly strip district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to those proceedings. The next two relists raise a related question: whether a habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. Federal Trade Commission.

Stare Decisis 93

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Statute Government 93

Patently O

JULY 6, 2022

However, the district court concluded that the prior art was not enabling — i.e., a person of skilled in the art would not be able to construct (or even design) the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In the area of obviousness though, the doctrine was developed by courts and then implemented by statute in 1952.

Stare Decisis 75

Stare Decisis Statute Court Construction 75

SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 20, 2023

The facts Hetronic, based in Oklahoma, manufactures and sells radio remote controls that operate heavy-duty construction equipment. The court asks if there is a “clear, affirmative indication” from the face of the statute that Congress intended the law to apply extraterritorially. It owns U.S. Has Congress directly spoken here?

Stare Decisis 96

Stare Decisis Laws Statute Construction 96