The phrase "grave infringement" is grammatically correct and can be used in written English.
It is typically used to describe a serious violation or transgression of a law, rule, or moral code. Example: The government warned that any grave infringement of human rights would result in severe penalties. In this example, the phrase "grave infringement" is used to describe a serious violation of human rights.
The affair has exposed both the reality of polygamy and the difficulty of doing anything about it.France considers polygamy "a grave infringement of the principle of equality between men and women".
Yet even he admits that the practice could lead to a "grave infringement of the liberty of the individual .That is why the parliamentary joint committee on human rights has called for the threshold test, along with appropriate safeguards, to be codified in statute.
Mr Gilani called the attack a "grave infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty".
She previously questioned the precedent of the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, and condemned the birth control benefit under the Affordable Care Act as "a grave infringement on religious liberty".
"We define this 'sanctions resolution' rigged up by the U.S. and its followers as a grave infringement upon the sovereignty of our Republic, as an act of war violating peace and stability in theKorean peninsula and the region and categorically reject the 'resolution'," it said.
But while criticizing the ruling, the lawmakers and leaders disagreed on its probable effects, with some saying it would expose religious rights to immediate and widespread infringement, while others spoke only of potentially grave problems for worshippers in the long run.
On Monday its news agency KCNA called the forthcoming sanctions "a wanton infringement on (North Korea's) sovereignty and a grave challenge to it," Reuters reported.
The better view, and the one consistent with Graver Tank's predecessors and the objective approach to infringement, is that intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
Petitioner first argues that Graver Tank never purported to supersede a well established limit on non literal infringement, known variously as "prosecution history estoppel" and "file wrapper estoppel". See Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar Int'l Research B.V., 738 F. 2d 1237, 1238 (CA Fed. 1984).
"This strikes me as a very minor infringement into their family life in order to prevent the possibility of a very grave ill," he said.
She said: "It had not occurred to me before this that Mr. Mortara would consider 'X' a copyright infringement of his work, as artists often influence each other, but I saw it as a grave insensitivity and carelessness on my part.
