Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − +
Separation of powers cases (view source)
Revision as of 15:55, October 23, 2022
, 15:55, October 23, 2022no edit summary
A total of 895 decisions by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] (as of Oct. 23, 2022) expressly mention separation of powers doctrine. Two of those decisions concern the [[PTAB]]:
A total of 895 decisions by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] (as of Oct. 23, 2022) expressly mention separation of powers doctrine. Two of those decisions concern the [[PTAB]]:
*''United States v. Arthrex'', 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1988 (2021) ("The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision.")
*''United States v. Arthrex'', 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1988 (2021) ("The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision.") - see concurrence (and partial dissent) by Justice Gorsuch.
*''Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee'', 579 U.S. 261, 276, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) ("The statute, however, contains a provision that grants the Patent Office authority to issue “regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(4). The Court of Appeals held that this statute gives the Patent Office the legal authority to issue its broadest reasonable construction regulation. We agree.") - but see concurrence by Justice Thomas questioning whether [[Chevron deference]] satisfies separation of powers doctrine.
*''Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee'', 579 U.S. 261, 276, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) ("The statute, however, contains a provision that grants the Patent Office authority to issue “regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(4). The Court of Appeals held that this statute gives the Patent Office the legal authority to issue its broadest reasonable construction regulation. We agree.") - but see concurrence by Justice Thomas questioning whether [[Chevron deference]] satisfies separation of powers doctrine.
[[category:Patent Law]]
[[category:Patent Law]]
[[category:United States Constitution]]
[[category:United States Constitution]]