Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative law (2)
- AIA (1)
- Administrative (1)
- Agencies (1)
- Agency (1)
-
- Agency delegation (1)
- America Invents Act (1)
- Auer v. Robbins (1)
- Bounded rationality (1)
- Business interests and influence (1)
- CBM (1)
- Code of conduct (1)
- Content analysis (1)
- Cuozzo (1)
- Deference (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Empirical analysis (1)
- Empirical legal studies (1)
- Environmental law and regulation (1)
- Global administrative law (1)
- Global governance (1)
- Hard look review (1)
- IPR (1)
- Inter partes (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Oil States (1)
- PGR (1)
- PTAB (1)
- Patent (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Disguised Patent Policymaking, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Disguised Patent Policymaking, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Faculty Scholarship
Patent Office power has grown immensely in this decade, and the agency is wielding its power in predictably troubling ways. Like other agencies, it injects politics into its decisions while relying on technocratic justifications. It also reads grants of authority expansively to aggrandize its power, especially to the detriment of judicial checks on agency action. However, this story of Patent Office ascendancy differs from that of other agencies in two important respects. One is that the U.S. patent system still remains primarily a means for allocating property rights, not a comprehensive regime of industrial regulation. Thus, the Patent Office cannot …
Capturing The Regulatory Agenda: An Empirical Study Of Agency Responsiveness To Rulemaking Petitions, Daniel E. Walters
Capturing The Regulatory Agenda: An Empirical Study Of Agency Responsiveness To Rulemaking Petitions, Daniel E. Walters
Faculty Scholarship
In environmental regulation as well as in other regulatory domains, a critical question is how outside interests shape the rulemaking agenda. A great deal of skepticism toward regulation stems from the widespread perception that agencies excessively, or even exclusively, cater to business interests. One answer to these concerns is administrative procedure, in particular rulemaking petitions, which are provided for in the Administrative Procedure Act and in many substantive environmental statutes. Although rulemaking petitions could in theory be used by business interests to strengthen their hold on regulatory agenda-setting, a growing number of scholars, highlighting the critical role a rulemaking petition …
The Self-Delegation False Alarm: Analyzing Auer Deference’S Effect On Agency Rules, Daniel E. Walters
The Self-Delegation False Alarm: Analyzing Auer Deference’S Effect On Agency Rules, Daniel E. Walters
Faculty Scholarship
Auer deference holds that reviewing courts should defer to agencies when the latter interpret their own preexisting regulations. This doctrine relieves pressure on agencies to undergo costly notice-and-comment rulemaking each time interpretation of existing regulations is necessary. But according to some leading scholars and jurists, the doctrine actually encourages agencies to promulgate vague rules in the first instance, augmenting agency power and violating core separation of powers norms in the process. The claim that Auer perversely encourages agencies to “self-delegate”—that is, to create vague rules that can later be informally interpreted by agencies with latitude due to judicial deference—has helped …
Global Platform Governance: Private Power In The Shadow Of The State, Hannah Bloch-Wehba
Global Platform Governance: Private Power In The Shadow Of The State, Hannah Bloch-Wehba
Faculty Scholarship
Online intermediaries—search engines, social media platforms, even e-commerce businesses—are increasingly required to make critical decisions about free expression, individual privacy, and property rights under domestic law. These requirements arise in contexts that include the right to be forgotten, hate speech, “terrorist” speech, and copyright and intellectual property. At the same time, these disputes about online speech are increasingly borderless. Many laws targeting online speech and privacy are explicitly extraterritorial in scope. Even when not, some courts have ruled that they have jurisdiction to enforce compliance on a global scale. And governments are also demanding that platforms remove content—on a global …