For many, the demise of Chevron—the doctrine by which agencies enjoy deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes—has long been coming. While Chevron's demise, and the resulting resurgence of Skidmore, is likely to lead to numerous challenges to previous agency decisions, its effect on intellectual property, namely patent law may be limited. Yet certain decisions by both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and its Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) have been afforded Chevron deference, and thus may be subject to post-Chevron challenges. This article examines three such examples: the ITC's interpretation of 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 (Section 337) in Suprema v. International Trade Commission; Director Kathi Vidal's guidance on discretionary denials at the PTAB; and the USPTO's proposed rule change for terminal disclaimers.