sales price” are entirely superfluous relative to the rest of the regulation, because the rest of the regulation already provides generally that vendors are entitled to a reduction for tax reimbursement. Under the court’s view, therefore, the pertinent language in § 408.2 is doubly pointless. In comparable circumstances, other courts have interpreted the word “if’ to be mandatory rather than permissive. See, e.g., United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir.1991) (under statute permitting officers to enter house to execute search warrant if officers are refused admittance after announcing authority and purpose, “the word £if in the statute means ‘only if ”); Perkinelmer, Inc. v. Interna Ltd., Civ. Act. Nos. 09cv10176-NG, etc., 2010 WL 2682423, *11-12 (D.Mass. July 2, 2010) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 496
holding that when two patents issued from continuationinpart appliea tions derived from one original application the prosecution history of a claim limitation in the first patent to issue was properly applied to the same claim limitation in the second patent to issue holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent