Church v. Napolitano, Civ. No. 11-4491 (RMB/AMD), 2013 WL 162986, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 15, 2013) (“[T]he Statute is not ‘silent’ as to the legal status of work performed in the United States-it is inclusive of all work performed inside and outside the United States, whether lawful or unlawful....”). The absence of any such requirement does not make the statute ambiguous or subject to interpretation; it makes it unequivocal. Cf. Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 116-20, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994) (concluding that imposition of regulatory “fault” requirement on statute that required compensation for any “injury,” without regard to fault, was inconsistent with the plain language of statute); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 60-65, 100 S.Ct. 915, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, where Congress wished past or current
holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim holding that congress intended no limitation on coverage of statute where the text contained no modifier or exception or other suggestion of any such limitation holding that the discovery rule within mcl 6005838a2 is an alternative to the other periods of limitation and it is itself a period of limitation