Guest Post: The Supreme Court Should Clarify How to Apply Loper Bright in the Patent Law Case of Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Co. Ltd.

"For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law, a course situated at the intersection of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and legislative design. Each semester, my students and I return to a foundational question: when, if at all, should courts defer to agency views, and when must the judiciary exercise independent interpretive judgment?"

"Loper Bright and Administrative Law When the Supreme Court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo last year-squarely rejecting Chevron and instructing courts to independently interpret statutes-it marked a watershed moment in administrative law. Yet nearly a year later, the Court has provided virtually no guidance on how Loper Bright should be applied. That silence leaves courts, practitioners, and those of us training future lawyers without real-world examples to illuminate this new interpretive landscape."

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright rejected Chevron and instructed courts to independently interpret statutes, creating a major shift in administrative law. The Court has not yet provided guidance on practical application, producing uncertainty for lower courts and practitioners. In Lynk Labs, the Federal Circuit adopted a USPTO interpretation that expanded the statutory term "printed publication" by relying on agency policy rationales. That approach effectively reintroduced Chevron-style deference under a different label and blurred the line between neutral interpretation and executive policymaking, challenging the constitutional principle that courts say what the law is.

Read at Patently-O