At its December 6, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the constitutionality of reviewing the contents of a cellphone without a warrant, whether computer-implemented inventions are patent eligible, and proximate causation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.


Issue(s): Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court.



Issue(s): Whether a defendant may be held liable under the “willful blindness” standard where its actions were consistent with an understanding of relevant legal requirements that was not objectively unreasonable.



Issue(s): (1) Whether the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act's proximate causation requirement may be satisfied by mere foreseeability or instead requires a direct causal relationship; and (2) whether plaintiffs may show fraud causation and damages by aggregate evidence of a correlation between the alleged fraud and doctors’ prescribing behavior without any showing of actual individualized causation.



Issue(s): When is a patent’s reference to a computer, or computer-implemented service like the Internet, sufficient to make an unpatentable abstract concept patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?



Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the call log of a cellphone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested.


Disclosure: Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case at the certiorari stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but it is not participating in the case at the merits stage.

Issue(s): Whether evidence admitted at petitioner's trial was obtained in a search of petitioner's cell phone that violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights.



Issue(s): Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts Montana’s rule subjecting arbitration provisions in standard-form contracts to a heightened standard of consent that does not apply to other terms in form contracts.




Issue(s): Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), state court adjudications are per se unreasonable and not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of December 6, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 2, 2013, 10:43 PM),