{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023485784919653894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.328125, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can't the PTO Get a Little Respect?

The decisions and proceedings of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") are at least implicitly at issue in every patent infringement lawsuit filed in Federal court. Nonetheless, this Article argues that Federal courts adjudicating patent cases systematically refuse to give the PTO the deference that Federal courts usually give to the decisions and proceedings of Federal administrative agencies. In such areas as patent invalidity, inequitable conduct, and stays pending reexamination, courts simply ignore or refuse to apply general principles of administrative deference. This Article further argues that courts' lack of deference to the PTO can be explained (though not justified) by a deep judicial skepticism about the quality and pace of PTO decisionmaking.