{"id":473,"date":"2012-06-16T16:46:40","date_gmt":"2012-06-16T16:46:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/\/?p=473"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:28","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:28","slug":"testing-the-limits-of-procedural-rulemaking-how-the-federal-circuit-can-use-tafas-v-dudas-to-clarify-the-authority-of-the-patent-office","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/testing-the-limits-of-procedural-rulemaking-how-the-federal-circuit-can-use-tafas-v-dudas-to-clarify-the-authority-of-the-patent-office\/","title":{"rendered":"Testing the Limits of Procedural Rulemaking: How the Federal Circuit Can Use Tafas v. Dudas to Clarify the Authority of the Patent Office"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In an effort to reduce the backlog of unexamined patent applications, the United States Patent and Trademark Office created a controversial new set of rules for patent applicants. In Tafas v. Dudas, a Federal District Court judge issued a permanent injunction against the rules, finding their enactment to be outside the Patent Office&#8217;s authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to define better both the rulemaking authority of the Patent Office and the Circuit&#8217;s approach to the distinction between substantive and procedural rules. This Recent Development proposes a more flexible approach toward classifying a rule as substantive or procedural than that used by the District Court in Tafas and discusses how this approach would affect the analysis of the Patent Office&#8217;s rulemaking authority.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In an effort to reduce the backlog of unexamined patent applications, the United States Patent and Trademark Office created a controversial new set of rules for patent applicants. In Tafas v. Dudas, a Federal District Court judge issued a permanent injunction against the rules, finding their enactment to be outside the Patent Office&#8217;s authority. On <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/testing-the-limits-of-procedural-rulemaking-how-the-federal-circuit-can-use-tafas-v-dudas-to-clarify-the-authority-of-the-patent-office\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,21,22],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=473"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7850,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions\/7850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}