{"id":10612,"date":"2019-08-08T11:09:34","date_gmt":"2019-08-08T17:09:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10612"},"modified":"2019-08-08T11:31:23","modified_gmt":"2019-08-08T17:31:23","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-day-windy-city-v-facebook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10612","title":{"rendered":"Oral Argument of the day: Windy City v. Facebook"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

If you have sixty-seven minutes to spare, you might want to check out yesterday’s oral argument in Facebook v. Windy City Innovations<\/em> (CJ Prost, O’Malley, Plager). It is an interesting and well-argued one. The case concerned statutory interpretation of the AIA’s joinder statute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few of the issues that cropped up in the oral argument were: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Why didn’t the PTO intervene in the case to address whether its precedential opinion should be given Chevron<\/em> deference?<\/li>
  2. Should the PTO’s precedential opinion panel (POP) decisions be given Chevron<\/em> deference?<\/li>
  3. Did Congress error by referring to infringement of a patent vs. infringement of a patent claim(s) in the AIA?<\/li>
  4. Is the statute ambiguous?<\/li>
  5. Is there a clerical error in the statute?<\/li>
  6. Should the court ask the PTO for its thoughts — even though the PTO chose not to weigh-in in the first instance?<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Judge Plager expressed the view that the USPTO’s precedential opinion panel decisions were not entitled to Chevron<\/em> deference:<\/p>\n\n\n\n