“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.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers
- Justices Seek Abitron Parties’ Help in Articulating Bounds of Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
- U.S. Taxpayers Should Not Be Paying for Private Patent Infringement
- UK Court Hands Down Key FRAND Ruling in InterDigital v. Lenovo
Recent Posts
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers
- Justices Seek Abitron Parties’ Help in Articulating Bounds of Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
- U.S. Taxpayers Should Not Be Paying for Private Patent Infringement
- UK Court Hands Down Key FRAND Ruling in InterDigital v. Lenovo