Second Patent Case at Supreme Court Could Have Big Impact

On November 27, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, a case that calls into question whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should be required to address all arguments made against a patent's validity in its final written decisions, rather than only addressing certain arguments. Bloomberg BNA contacted Finnegan partner Jason Stach for his thoughts on the implications of the case. 

Jason believes a Supreme Court reversal could have a ripple effect not only at the PTAB, but in patent litigation and beyond because the case deals directly with how administrative agencies build rules to implement laws. He said:

The Supreme Court could make a broader point in SAS Institute, and administrative law watchers should be paying more attention. SAS Institute wants the high court to overturn the PTO's interpretation of certain AIA provisions, and the court could take the case in order to address deference to any administrative agency's statutory interpretation. Currently, federal courts are highly deferential to agency interpretations under the Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. But the court's newest member, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, has signaled his desire to do away with Chevron deference, and SAS Institute may be the first opportunity he has to make that point to his colleagues.