Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lee that the patent agency was within the scope of the law to issue regulations that construe claims in an issued patent according to their "broadest reasonable interpretation," [2] rather than on a more restrictive reading based on their "plain and ordinary meaning," as is the custom in courts. [16]
The last preliminary issue was what standard should be used to interpret the claims. The PTAB used the "broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)" standard, which is "generally used in USPTO office actions." Versata challenged that and argued for a narrower interpretation of the claim language.
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the ...
[8] [9] In the case, Petitioner Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, argued that the PTAB's use of the "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" (BRI) claim construction standard exceeded their authority, and that Congress had legislated that they follow the "Phillips" claim construction standard used in other U.S. Courts.
Under the narrow version, the doctrine serves only to say that, when an agency asserts that it has authority to decide major questions, courts should independently determine whether the agency's interpretation of its statutory authority is the most reasonable reading of the statute.
"To find the CRT’s interpretation patently unreasonable, there must be an immediately obvious defect – suggesting that there can only be one reasonable interpretation of the Second Resolution. This is not the case. Another reasonable interpretation could be that the special levy is due and payable on May 1, 2021, per the underlined phrase.
The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, [1] purposive construction, [2] purposive interpretation, [3] or the modern principle in construction) [4] is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose.
The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy.