5 U.S.C.§ 553: Patent Elephants in Process Mouseholes
Thomas G. Field Jr.
University of New Hampshire School of Law (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center)
March 28, 2009
Pierce Law Review, Vol. 8, p. 82, 2009
Reversing Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F.Supp.2d 805 (E.D.Va. 2008), a panel of the Federal Circuit in Tafas v. Doll, 2009 WL 723353 (Fed. Cir. 2009), finds challenged rules within the rulemaking authority of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). It therfore remands for consideration of a host of issues that the district court had not needed to reach.
This comment focuses on one question to be considered on remand: whether the PTO must use notice and comment rule making to promulgate procedural rules. It argues that the statute does not warrant imposing such an unusual duty. Moreover, it argues that the issue need not be addressed insofar as rules in question were in fact promulgated after notice and extensive (if largely unfavorable) public comment.
The comment also notes that the opinion was vacated by the Federal Circuit en banc in Tafas v. Kappos.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: patent and trademark office, PTO, administrative process, rulemaking authority
JEL Classification: K20, K23
Date posted: April 1, 2009 ; Last revised: January 9, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 1.000 seconds