context: We respectfully disagree; First, neither Return Mail nor the Postal Service discusses the significance, if any, of the word "person" as-used in SS 18(a)(1)(B). This issue is distinct - and independent from the dispute before us regarding the meaning of the phrase "sued for infringement." Return Mail's failure to develop any arguments on this issue would typically constitute waiver.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 439 F.3d 1319, 1319
citation_a.parenthetical: "Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived."
citation_a.sentence: See SmithKline Beecham, 439 F.3d at 1319 (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[F]ailure to raise a particular question of statutory construction before an agency constitutes waiver of the argument in court.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 25 F.3d 1063, 1074
citation_b.parenthetical: "[F]ailure to raise a particular question of statutory construction before an agency constitutes waiver of the argument in court."
citation_b.sentence: See SmithKline Beecham, 439 F.3d at 1319 (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[F]ailure to raise a particular question of statutory construction before an agency constitutes waiver of the argument in court.”).