Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that the federal government had no statutory basis to file a petition for inter partes review
• holding that, “absent other contextual indicators of Congress’ intent to include the Government in a statutory provision referring to a ‘person,’” the government is not a “person” capable of instituting administrative review proceedings
• explaining that a statutory term will not always “mean the same thing” each time it is used, “especially when [it] is used throughout a statute and takes on distinct characters in distinct statutory provisions” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• \The consistent-usage canon breaks down where Congress uses the same word in a statute in multiple conflicting ways.\
• first quoting United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947); and then quoting 1 U.S.C. § 1
• “[A] federal agency is not a ‘person’ who may petition for post-issuance review under the [America Invents Act].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).