Inter Partes Reexamination Not Limited To First Application In Chain Of Applications
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.29.08
In Cooper Technologies Company v. Dudas and Thomas & Betts Corporation (No. 2008-1130, August 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms the interpretation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) that utility, plant and design applications, including first filed applications, continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, continued prosecution applications and the national stage phase of international applications are subject to inter partes reexamination, in contrast to Appellant's contention that only the first application in a chain of applications from which priority is claimed is subject to inter partes reexamination. The Federal Circuit explains that because the Patent Office is specifically charged with administering statutory provisions relating to "the conduct of proceedings in the Office," the Federal Circuit gives Chevron deference to the Patent Office's interpretations of those provisions. The Federal Circuit concludes that the Patent Office's interpretation is reasonable and is entitled to Chevron deference.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
