California Court of Appeal, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746

Principles of Statutory Construction

 

Interpretation (Statute)

 

California Law

 

 

“We review questions of statutory construction de novo.” (John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95.) “‘“Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.”’ [Citations.] ‘“‘We begin with the plain language of the statute, affording the words of the provision their ordinary and usual meaning and viewing them in their statutory context, because the language employed in the Legislature’s enactment generally is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.’ [Citations.] The plain meaning controls if there is no ambiguity in the statutory language. [Citation.] If, however, ‘the statutory language may reasonably be given more than one interpretation, “‘“courts may consider various extrinsic aids, including the purpose of the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute.”’”’”’” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Conservation, etc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 210, 231-232.)

 

 

“Statutory language susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation is regarded as ambiguous .... Whether statutory language is ambiguous is a question of law subject to an independent determination on appeal.” (Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 916, 925.) “When statutory language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, courts must (1) select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute and (2) avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” (Ibid.)

 

 

(…) (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 199 [courts must assume that when enacting a statute the Legislature was aware of existing related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of rules].)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Dec. 17, 2024, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746, Certified for Publication)

 

U.S. Supreme Court, Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, Docket No. 17-1594, J. Sotomayor

Patent Reexamination

Post-Issuance Review Proceedings

Defense in an Infringement Action

Ex Parte Reexamination

Inter Partes Reexamination

Inter Partes Review

Post-Grant Review

Covered-Business-Method Review

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Interpretation (Statute)

Dictionary Act

In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, 35 U. S. C. §100 et seq., Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and established three new types of administrative proceedings before the Board that allow a “person” other than the patent owner to challenge the validity of a patent post-issuance. The question presented in this case is whether a federal agency is a “person” able to seek such review under the statute. We conclude that it is not.

(…) After a patent issues, there are several avenues by which its validity can be revisited. The first is through a defense in an infringement action. Generally, one who intrudes upon a patent without authorization “infringes the patent” and becomes subject to civil suit in the federal district courts, where the patent owner may demand a jury trial and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. §§271(a), 281–284. If, however, the Federal Gov­ernment is the alleged patent infringer, the patent owner must sue the Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims and may recover only “reasonable and entire compensation” for the unauthorized use. 28 U. S. C. §1498(a).

Once sued, an accused infringer can attempt to prove by clear and convincing evidence “that the patent never should have issued in the first place.” Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L. P., 564 U. S. 91, 96–97 (2011); see 35 U. S. C. §282(b). If a defendant succeeds in showing that the claimed invention falls short of one or more patentability requirements, the court may deem the patent invalid and absolve the defendant of liability.

The Patent Office may also reconsider the validity of issued patents. Since 1980, the Patent Act has empow­ered the Patent Office “to reexamine—and perhaps cancel—a patent claim that it had previously allowed.” Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 3). This procedure is known as ex parte reexamination. “Any person at any time” may cite to the Patent Office certain prior art that may “bear on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent”; and the person may additionally request that the Patent Office reexamine the claim on that basis. 35 U. S. C. §§301(a), 302(a). If the Patent Office concludes that the prior art raises “a substantial new question of patentability,” the agency may reexamine the patent and, if warranted, cancel the patent or some of its claims. §§303(a), 304–307. The Director of the Patent Office may also, on her “own initiative,” initiate such a proceeding. §303(a).

In 1999 and 2002, Congress added an “inter partes reexamination” procedure, which similarly invited “any person at any time” to seek reexamination of a patent on the basis of prior art and allowed the challenger to partic­ipate in the administrative proceedings and any subse­quent appeal. See §311(a) (2000 ed.); §§314(a), (b) (2006 ed.); Cuozzo Speed Technologies, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3).

In 2011, Congress overhauled the patent system by enacting the America Invents Act (AIA), which created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and phased out inter partes reexamination. See 35 U. S. C. §6; H. R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, pp. 46–47. In its stead, the AIA tasked the Board with overseeing three new types of post-issuance review proceedings.

First, the “inter partes review” provision permits “a person” other than the patent owner to petition for the review and cancellation of a patent on the grounds that the invention lacks novelty or nonobviousness in light of “patents or printed publications” existing at the time of the patent application. §311.

Second, the “post-grant review” provision permits “a person who is not the owner of a patent” to petition for review and cancellation of a patent on any ground of patentability. §321; see §§282(b)(2), (b)(3). Such proceedings must be brought within nine months of the patent’s issu­ance. §321.

Third, the “covered-business-method review” (CBM review) provision provides for changes to a patent that claims a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice or management of a finan­cial product or service. AIA §§18(a)(1), (d)(1), 125 Stat.329, note following 35 U. S. C. §321, p. 1442. CBM review tracks the “standards and procedures of” post-grant re­view with two notable exceptions: CBM review is not limited to the nine months following issuance of a patent, and “a person” may file for CBM review only as a defense against a charge or suit for infringement. §18(a)(1)(B),125 Stat. 330.

The CBM review program will stop accepting new claims in 2020. See AIA §18(a)(3)(A), 125 Stat. 330; 77 Fed. Reg. 48687 (2012).

(…) Any party “dissatisfied” with the Board’s final decision may seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, §§319, 329; see §141(c), and the Director of the Patent Office may intervene, §143.

In sum, in the post-AIA world, a patent can be reex­amined either in federal court during a defense to an infringement action, in an ex parte reexamination by the Patent Office, or in the suite of three post-issuance review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

(…) The AIA provides that only “a person” other than the patent owner may file with the Office a petition to insti­tute a post-grant review or inter partes review of an issued patent. 35 U. S. C. §§311(a), 321(a). The statute likewise provides that a “person” eligible to seek CBM review may not do so “unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement.” AIA §18(a)(1)(B), 125 Stat. 330. The question in this case is whether the Government is a “person” capable of institut­ing the three AIA review proceedings.

The patent statutes do not define the term “person.” In the absence of an express statutory definition, the Court applies a “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,” and thus excludes a federal agency like the Postal Service.

(…) This presumption reflects “common usage.” (…) It is also an express directive from Congress: The Dictionary Act has since 1947 provided the definition of “‘person’ ” that courts use “in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1; (…) The Act provides that the word “ ‘person’ . . . includes corporations, companies, associa­tions, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock com­panies, as well as individuals.” §1. Notably absent from the list of “persons” is the Federal Government.

(…) Given the presumption that a statutory reference to a “person” does not include the Government, the Postal Service must show that the AIA’s context indicates otherwise. Although the Postal Service need not cite to “an express contrary definition,” Rowland, 506 U. S., at 200, it must point to some indication in the text or context of the statute that affirmatively shows Congress intended to include the Government. See Cooper, 312 U. S., at 605.

(…) Patent Office’s Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)

(…) This Court has not decided whether common-law estoppel applies in §1498 suits (cf. fn. 10).

(U.S. Supreme Court, June 10, 2019, Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, Docket No. 17-1594, J. Sotomayor)

Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, Docket No. 18-389, J. Thomas, Unanimous

Admiralty Law

Maritime Law

Continental Shelf

Drilling Platforms

State Law Adopted as Federal Law?

Pre-emption

California Law (Minimum Wages)

Interpretation (Statute)

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. §1331 et seq., extends federal law to the subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf and all attachments thereon (OCS). Under the OCSLA, all law on the OCS is federal law, administered by federal officials. The OCSLA denies States any interest in or jurisdiction over the OCS, and it deems the adjacent State’s laws to be federal law “to the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” other federal law. §1333(a)(2)(A). The question before us is how to determine which state laws meet this requirement and therefore should be adopted as federal law. Applying familiar tools of statutory interpretation, we hold that where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the OCS.

Respondent Brian Newton worked for petitioner Parker Drilling Management Services on drilling platforms off the coast of California. Newton’s 14-day shifts involved 12 hours per day on duty and 12 hours per day on standby, during which he could not leave the platform. He was paid well above the California and federal minimum wages for his time on duty, but he was not paid for his standby time.

(…) Parker, on the other hand, argues that state law is not “applicable” on the OCS in the absence of a gap in federal law that needs to be filled. Moreover, Parker argues that state law can be “inconsistent” with federal law even if it is possible for a party to satisfy both sets of laws. Specifically, Parker contends that, although the FLSA normally accommodates more protective state wage-and-hour laws, such laws are inconsistent with the FLSA when adopting state law as surrogate federal law because federal law would then contain two different standards.

Although this is a close question of statutory interpretation, on the whole we find Parker’s approach more persuasive because “ ‘the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ ” Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 566 U. S. 93, 101 (2012).

That rule is particularly relevant here, as the terms “applicable” and “not inconsistent” are susceptible of interpretations that would deprive one term or the other of meaning. If Newton is right that “applicable” merely means relevant to the subject matter, then the word adds nothing to the statute, for an irrelevant law would never be “applicable” in that sense (…) And if Parker is right that “applicable” means “necessary to fill a gap in federal law,” it is hard to imagine circumstances in which “not inconsistent” would add anything to the statute, for a state law would rarely be inconsistent with a federal law that leaves a gap that needs to be filled.

(…) In short, the two terms standing alone do not resolve the question before us. Particularly given their indeterminacy in isolation, the terms should be read together and interpreted in light of the entire statute. See Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6) (“ ‘Interpretation of a phrase of uncertain reach is not confined to a single sentence when the text of the whole statute gives instruction as to its meaning’ ”).

Our pre-OCSLA decisions made clear that the Federal Government controlled the OCS in every respect, and the OCSLA reaffirmed the central role of federal law on the OCS. As discussed, the OCSLA gives the Federal Government complete “jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition” over the OCS, while giving the States no “interest in or jurisdiction” over it. §§1332(1), 1333(a)(3). The statute applies federal law to the OCS “to the same extent as if the OCS were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State.” §1333(a)(1). Accordingly, the only law on the OCS is federal law, and state laws are adopted as federal law only “to the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” federal law. §1333(a)(2)(A).

Taken together, these provisions convince us that state laws can be “applicable and not inconsistent” with federal law under §1333(a)(2)(A) only if federal law does not address the relevant issue. As we have said before, the OCSLA makes apparent “that federal law is ‘exclusive’ in its regulation of the OCS, and that state law is adopted only as surrogate federal law.” Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U. S. 352, 357 (1969). The OCSLA extends all federal law to the OCS, and instead of also extending state law writ large, it borrows only certain state laws. These laws, in turn, are declared to be federal law and are administered by federal officials.

Given the primacy of federal law on the OCS and the limited role of state law, it would make little sense to treat the OCS as a mere extension of the adjacent State, where state law applies unless it conflicts with federal law. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604, 617–618 (2011). That type of pre-emption analysis is applicable only where the overlapping, dual jurisdiction of the Federal and State Governments makes it necessary to decide which law takes precedence.

(…) The question is whether federal law has already addressed the relevant issue; if so, state law addressing the same issue would necessarily be inconsistent with existing federal law and cannot be adopted as surrogate federal law. Put another way, to the extent federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable.

(…) In Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), the Court again viewed the OCSLA as adopting state law to fill in federal-law gaps. In Huson, the question was whether federal admiralty law or a state statute governed a tort action arising from an injury that occurred on the OCS. Id., at 98–99. Describing Rodrigue’s analysis, we explained that where “there exists a substantial ‘gap’ in federal law,” “state law remedies are not ‘inconsistent’ with applicable federal law.” 404 U. S., at 101. We highlighted that “state law was needed” as surrogate federal law because federal law alone did not provide “ ‘a complete body of law,’ ” which is why “Congress specified that a comprehensive body of state law should be adopted by the federal courts in the absence of existing federal law.” Id., at 103–104. In other words, the OCSLA “made clear provision for filling in the ‘gaps’ in federal law.” Id., at 104. And because Congress had decided not to apply federal admiralty law on the OCS, leaving a gap on the relevant issue, we held that it was appropriate to “absorb” the state law as federal law. Id., at 104, 109.

(…) All law on the OCS is federal, and state law serves a supporting role, to be adopted only where there is a gap in federal law’s coverage.

(…) Applying this standard, some of Newton’s present claims are readily resolvable. For instance, some of his claims are premised on the adoption of California law requiring payment for all time that Newton spent on standby. See Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 833, 842, 340 P. 3d 355, 361 (2015); Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §510(a) (West 2011). But federal law already addresses this issue. See 29 CFR §785.23 (2018) (“An employee who resides on his employer’s premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises”); see also 29 U. S. C. §207(a). Therefore, this California law does not provide the rule of decision on the OCS, and to the extent Newton’s OCS-based claims rely on that law, they necessarily fail.

Likewise, to the extent Newton’s OCS-based claims rely on the adoption of the California minimum wage (currently $12), Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §1182.12(b) (West Supp. 2019), the FLSA already provides for a minimum wage, 29 U. S. C. §206(a)(1), so the California minimum wage does not apply.

(…) Of course, it is conceivable that state law might be “inconsistent” with federal law for purposes of §1333(a)(2) even absent an on-point federal law. For example, federal law might contain a deliberate gap, making state law inconsistent with the federal scheme. Or, state law might be inconsistent with a federal law addressing a different issue. We do not foreclose these or other possible inconsistencies (fn. 2, p. 14). 

(U.S. Supreme Court, June 10, 2019, Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, Docket No. 18-389, J. Thomas, unanimous)

Interpretation - Statutory Preambles

Interpretation (Statutes)

Interpretation (Purpose)

Statutory Preambles

California Law

(…) Though we have cautioned that statutory preambles do not impose substantive requirements (Briggs, “supra”, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1118), our task when interpreting legislation is to effectuate the statutory purpose –– and “statements of purpose in a statute’s preamble can be illuminating,” particularly if a statute is ambiguous (Yeager v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103).

(California Supreme Court, May 6, 2019, FilmOn.com Inc., v. DoubleVerify Inc., S244157)

Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, Docket No. 15-1439

Interpretation (statute): Rule of the last antecedent:

(Fn. 6) The classic example comes from Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U. S. 20 (2003). The statute at issue provided that a person is disabled if his impairment is so severe that “he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Id., at 23 (quoting 42 U. S. C. §423(d)(1)(A)). Invoking the rule of the last antecedent, we concluded that the italicized phrase “which exists in the national economy” modifies only “substantial gainful work,” and not the more distant “previous work.” See 540 U. S., at 26.

(U.S.S.C., March 20, 2018, Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, Docket No. 15-1439, J. Kagan, unanimous)

Un exemple d'application de la règle d'interprétation de la loi connue sous le nom de "Rule of the last antecedent".

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, Docket No. 16-1276, J. Thomas, with whom JJ. Alito and Gorsuch join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment

Interpretation (statute): Senate report: Committee report: Legislative history:

I join the Court’s opinion only to the extent it relies on the text of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Con­sumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), 124 Stat. 1376. The question in this case is whether the term “whistleblower” in Dodd-Frank’s antiretaliation provision, 15 U. S. C.§78u–6(h)(1), includes a person who does not report infor­mation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The answer is in the definitions section of the statute, which states that the term “whistleblower” means a person who provides “information relating to a violation of the securi­ties laws to the Commission.” §78u–6(a)(6). As the Court observes, this statutory definition “resolves the question before us.” The Court goes on, however, to discuss the supposed “purpose” of the statute, which it primarily derives from a single Senate Report. Even assuming a majority of Con­gress read the Senate Report, agreed with it, and voted for Dodd-Frank with the same intent, “we are a government of laws, not of men, and are governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended.” Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U. S. 429, ___ (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 1). And “it would be a strange canon of statutory construction that would require Congress to state in committee reports . . . that which is obvious on the face of a statute.” Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 592 (1980). For these reasons, I am unable to join the portions of the Court’s opinion that venture beyond the statutory text.

(U.S.S.C, Feb. 21, 2018, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, Docket No. 16-1276, J. Thomas, with whom JJ. Alito and Gorsuch join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).

Dans son opinion concurrente, le Juge Thomas, rejoint par les Juges Gorsuch et Alito, expose que dans la mesure où le texte même de la loi répond à la question posée en l'espèce, il n'est nul besoin pour la Cour de se référer à des travaux législatifs pour éclairer la loi, qui n'a pas à l'être, étant déjà suffisamment claire. Nul besoin non plus dans ce cas de recourir à une interprétation téléologique.