to challenge the patent through CBM review. Although the PTAB may issue a final written decision in a CBM review if no petitioner remains, this does not mean that we do not have the authority to review the government's standing to file the petition. It is trae that the PTAB "may terminate the [CBM] review or proceed to a final written decision” if "no petitioner remains in the post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 327(a). However, that does not mean that the PTAB may proceed to a final written decision if the party filing the petition lacked standing to do so, for it would render meaningless the conditions precedent for PTO action in § 18(a)(1) and license the PTO to act ultra vires. See Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Arlington, 133 S.Ct. at 1869
holding that courts should avoid constructions that would render statutory text superfluous holding that courts must avoid adding conditions to the applicability of a statute that do not appear in the provisions text holding courts should apply statutory constructions that make practical sense and do not frustrate legislative intent holding courts must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless or superfluous holding in the construction of administrative regulations as well as statutes it is presumed that every phrase serves a legitimate purpose and therefore constructions which render regulatory provisions superfluous are to be avoided