Back Out of the Deference Labyrinth—a Response to Prof. Golden

Patent

David Boundy

This is a response to Prof. Golden’s A Walk in the Deference Labyrinth: Further Comment on Facebook v. Windy City, Patently-O (Sept. 27, 2019).  In my view, Prof. Golden overlooked some things (the same things overlooked by the PTO in its brief).  When those additional factors are clearly in view, Prof. Golden’s labyrinth falls into nice straight lines of sight showing that the Chevron deference issue in Facebook v. Windy City is no labyrinth at all: the PTAB’s Proppant decision is not entitled to Chevron deference.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Garmin: Applying Facts-to-the-Law vs Law-to-the-Facts

Patent

Garmin USA, Inc., et al. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc. (Supreme Court 2019)

Question Presented: Whether patent eligibility is a question of law for the court that can be resolved on a motion to dismiss, notwithstanding allegations in a complaint that the asserted claims are inventive.

[Petition for Writ of Certiorari][Appendix].

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.