Abstract
The decisions and proceedings of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) are at least implicitly at issue in every patent infringement lawsuit filed in federal court. Nonetheless, this Article argues that federal courts adjudicating patent cases systematically refuse to give the PTO the deference that courts usually give to the decisions and proceedings of federal administrative agencies. In such areas as patent invalidity, inequitable conduct, and stays pending reexamination, courts simply ignore or refuse to apply general principles of administrative deference. This Article further argues that courts’ lack of deference to the PTO can be explained (though not justified) by a deep judicial skepticism about the quality and pace of PTO decision-making. © 2012 Joshua L. Sohn. † Associate, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, L.L.P. J.D., Harvard Law School (2006); A.B., Stanford University (2003). I would like to thank Jeffrey Harris, Christopher Lanese, Eugene Novikov, Matthew Stephenson, and the staff of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal for their comments and suggestions. The opinions expressed herein are my own and should not be taken to represent those of the Quinn Emanuel law firm or its attorneys. 1604 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 26:1603
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call