“A” is one of the smallest words, but it is not the simplest—most Supreme Court judges can disagree on its meaning. In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the Court issued a 5-3 decision and held that “a” meant “one” in a statute regarding “a notice to appear.” Although the Niz-Chavez case is not about patent claim interpretation, it behooves us to pay attention to this tiny word. Soon after the Supreme Court decision, this issue has appeared again, this time in a patent case.
Recent Posts
- IPWatchdog Masters Panelists Urge U.S. Government to Get Organized When It Comes to AI
- Fixing the PTAB: 10 Things the USPTO Can Do to Improve the PTAB | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Fox Succeeds in Scrapping Machine Learning Claims at CAFC Under 101
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 18: CAFC Affirms Ineligibility of Machine Learning Claims; EPO’s Campinos Issues Opinion on Intervener Appeals; USPTO Ends Climate Change Mitigation Program
- In Latest Antitrust Blow for Google, Judge Finds Search Giant Monopolizes Certain Ad Tech Markets