Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal

We took this case en banc to resolve the seemingly straightforward question of whether the statute at issue unambiguously requires the burden of persuasion for motions to amend to remain with the petitioner. A clear majority of the court has decided that it does not. That conclusion alone should resolve the case and require deference'to the Director’s clear and consistent interpretation of an ambiguous statute that he is entitled to interpret, as evidenced by the Director’s regulatory interpretation of the statute and further definitive interpretations of that regulation. But rather than…