欧美判例翻译(13)

　　United States, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1257, 1264-1265, 188 L.Ed.2d 272 (2014)(针对性的考察一个土地
　　特许状转让书通过的历史背景，以确定其解释).
　　[81]See, e.g., The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 75, 18 L.Ed. 137 (1866) (描述一种从英国普通法中借鉴而来的法律解释方法，其在一些州的判决中有所反应).
　　[82]11 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts ?30:2, pp. 17-18 (4th ed. 2012) (Williston); see also Reed v. Proprietors of
　　Locks and Canals on Merrimac River, 8 How. 274, 288-289, 12 L.Ed. 1077 (1850).
　　[83]11 Williston ?31:1, at 341-342
　　id., ?30:1.
　　[84]See William & James Brown & Co. v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479, 493, 10 L.Ed. 550 (1840) (Story, J.); Reed, supra, at 289. See generally Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 10 Ct.Cl. 548, 577-578 (1874) (倾向于利用解释合同的方法解释与合同相类似的法律,因为所有合同术语都是命令式的且为相对方所接受，而且司法解释唯一能够确定的意图是立法意图。”), cited in 3 N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction ?63:1, p. 405, n. 6 (7th ed.2008).
　　[85]Silver King Coalition Mines Co. of Nevada v. Silver King Consol. Mining Co. of Utah, 204 F. 166 (C.A.8 1913),cited inAdvisory Committee's*847 1937 Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52, 28 U.S.C.App., p. 686.
　　[86]Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1262.
　　[87]See 4 W. Holdsworth,AHistory of English Law 350-351 (1924).
　　[88]Id., at 344-347.
　　[89]See 4 W. Holdsworth,AHistory of English Law at 353 (1924)..
　　[90]Lemley, Why Do Juries Decide if Patents are Valid? 99 Va. L.Rev. 1673, 1681 (2013).
　　[91]U.S. Const.Art. I, ?8, cl. 8.
　　[92]See, e.g., Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-550, 14 L.Ed. 532 (1853)
　　[93]See 35 U.S.C. ?151; see also Act of July 8, 1870, ?31, 16 Stat. 202; Act of July 4, 1836, ?7, 5 Stat. 119; Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, ?1, 1 Stat. 109-110.
　　[94]Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 510, 37 S.Ct. 416, 61 L.Ed. 871 (1917)(emphasis added).
　　[95]See Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 279, 24 L.Ed. 344 (1877); see also Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 227, 26 L.Ed. 149 (1880) (检查专利权利人公开宣布的理解，但是不承认任何认为在专利公布后专利权利人的理解可以扩大、缩减或改变专利用语的判决。).
　　[96]Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 63, 119 S.Ct. 304, 142 L.Ed.2d 261 (1998); see also Kendall v.Winsor, 21 How. 322, 327-328, 16 L.Ed. 165 (1859); Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 242, 8 L.Ed. 376 (1832).
　　[97]See, e.g., Motion Picture Patents Co.,?supra, at 513, 37 S.Ct. 416; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 533-534,20 L.Ed. 33 (1871); Grant, supra, at 242; see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985, n. 14(C.A.Fed.1995), aff'd 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996) (从合同中区分出专利).
　　[98]Motion Picture Patents Co., supra, at 510, 37 S.Ct. 416 (collecting cases)(作者：柳楠，来源：华东政法大学知识产权)