Petitions We’re Watching

You can select a particular conference (or the cases referred to the Solicitor General) below or click here to instead sort by the case's name. (Sorting by case name prompts display of the complete, searchable list of cases.)

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions for Conference of 09.29.2014

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
13-1517 Goins v. Lazaroff Whether an aggregate prison term imposed on a juvenile for non-homicide offenses that does not permit release before 100 years of age constitutes a sentence of life without parole as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
13-1479 Khan v. Chowdhury Whether, where one of the claims submitted to a jury is set aside after trial, a court must vacate the jury's general verdict, or may apply a “harmless error” exception.
13-1467 Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Kobold Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA), which expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law” that would prevent enforcement of “[t]he terms of any contract” under FEHBA that “relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits),” preempts state laws precluding carriers that administer FEHBA plans from seeking reimbursement or subrogation pursuant to the terms of FEHBA contracts.
13-1441 City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books Whether, to satisfy the First Amendment as applied in Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. and its progeny, an hours-of-operation regulation targeting negative secondary effects must be supported by highly specific, statistically-significant empirical evidence.
13-1428 Chappell v. Ayala Whether a state court's rejection of a claim of federal constitutional error on the ground that any error, if one occurred, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is an “adjudicat[ion] on the merits” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), so that a federal court may set aside the resulting final state conviction only if the defendant can satisfy the restrictive standards imposed by that provision.
13-1398 Fedder v. Addus Healthcare (1) Whether Section 1927 of Title 28 of the United States Code, which provides that when an attorney “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplies proceedings, he may be required “to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct,” categorically prohibits courts from considering an attorney's ability to pay when exercising their discretion in determining the amount of sanctions to be imposed; and (2) whether Section 1927 permits courts to impose sanctions when the attorney’s conduct was neither reckless nor in subjective bad faith.
13-1379 Athena Cosmetics v. Allergan Whether, under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act impliedly preempts a private state-law claim for unfair competition premised on a party’s purported failure to obtain Food and Drug Administration approval, where the Food and Drug Administration itself has not imposed any such requirement.
13-1371 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project (1) Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and (2) if disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, what standards and burdens of proof should apply.
13-1367 Ashley Furniture Industries v. U.S. (1) Whether a statute that denies a government benefit based on a recipient’s failure to express support for a proposed course of government action, is subject to, and survives, strict scrutiny under the First Amendment; and (2) whether, to successfully defend a viewpoint-discriminatory statute subject to intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the government must prove that non-discriminatory measures would fail to satisfy the government's interests.
13-1361 Samantar v. Yousuf Whether a foreign official’s common-law immunity for acts performed on behalf of a foreign state is abrogated by plaintiffs’ allegations that those official acts violate jus cogens norms of international law.
13-1352 Ohio v. Clark (1) Whether an individual's obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause; and (2) whether a child's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher's concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.
13-1343 Brown v. Mississippi Department of Health Whether a court may increase a damage award under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to offset the negative tax liabilities a plaintiff will suffer for receiving back and future wages in one year compared to receiving them over several years.
13-1339 Spokeo v. Robins Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.
13-1315 Dunlap v. Idaho Whether the Confrontation Clause applies to evidence offered by the prosecution to prove statutory aggravating circumstances that establish a defendant's eligibility for the death penalty.
13-1314 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Whether the provision of the Arizona Constitution that divests the Arizona Legislature of any authority to prescribe congressional district lines violates the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires that the time, place, and manner of congressional elections be prescribed in each state by the “Legislature thereof.”
13-1313 Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris Whether the Commerce Clause allows California to impose a complete ban on the sale of wholesome, USDA-approved poultry products from other States and countries - in this case, foie gras - based solely on the agricultural methods used by out-of-state farmers who raise their animals entirely beyond California's borders.
13-1306 West Virginia ex rel. U-Haul Co. of West Virginia v. Zakaib Whether the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals violated the Federal Arbitration Act’s severability rule by refusing to enforce an arbitration clause on the basis of a challenge that was not directed specifically to that clause.
13-1305 Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA), which governs the federal government’s provision of health benefits to millions of federal employees and their dependents, preempts state laws precluding carriers that administer FEHBA plans from seeking subrogation as required by their contracts with the Office of Personnel Management.
13-1301 Pierre v. Holder (1) Whether the biological basis for sex discrimination articulated in Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service can be extended to unrelated facial sex and legitimacy-based distinctions in 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), or whether such distinctions are unconstitutional, as four Justices concluded in an order for an equally divided court in Flores-Villar v. United States; and (2) whether heightened scrutiny, the ordinary standard of review for sex and legitimacy-based distinctions, applies to such distinctions in the citizenship context.
13-1274 Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP Whether a party should be required to demonstrate prejudice after the opposing party waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation, in order for such waiver to be binding and irrevocable under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act; (2) whether, if prejudice is required, what constitutes sufficient “prejudice” in order to find “waiver;” and (3) whether state law contractual defenses to enforcement of an arbitration agreement preserved under Section 2 of the Act, such as defenses of waiver or estoppel, provide a defense to an application for either a stay under Section 3 of the Act or an order compelling arbitration under Section 4.
13-1269 WorldCom v. Internal Revenue Service Whether, contrary to the Federal Circuit's decision in USA Choice Internet Services, LLC v. United States, the Internal Revenue Service can tax as “local telephone service” under 26 U.S.C. § 4251 the purchase of data services that do not enable the purchaser to make or receive telephone calls.
13-1268 Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots Whether, when applying the Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis thirty-percent rule—that, ordinarily, a qualifying “seaman” under the Jones Act must spend thirty percent or more of his time in service of a vessel in navigation—a court may consider the time a maritime worker spends in the service of a vessel in navigation that is moored, dockside, or ashore, as the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held, or whether a court must categorically exclude such time, as the Eleventh Circuit and the Maryland Court of Appeals have held.
13-1252 Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson Whether, in a federal jury case, a district judge's procedural failure to make detailed findings under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals regarding important expert testimony requires the appellate court to order a new trial, regardless of whether there was actually any substantive error in the expert testimony heard or not heard by the jury.
13-1251 Pronova BioPharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Whether the statutory bar for “public use” of an invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006) (pre-America Invents Act) (current version at 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2012)) broadly bars a patent when an innovator company allows any public access to its invention even if the invention is not actually used in public for its intended purpose.
13-1236 U.S. ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited Whether the “freely given” standard for the amendment of pleading embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and espoused in Foman v. Davis, applies to a motion to amend timely filed after the entry of judgment, as held by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits, or whether the entry of judgment categorically forecloses any application of Rule 15(a), as held by the First, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.
13-1235 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (1) Whether the lower court’s refusal to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to justify the revised 2008 national ambient air quality standards as being “not lower or higher than is necessary” can stand in light of that decision’s conflict with Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns; and (2) whether the lower court’s agreement with the EPA that the 1997 findings were irrelevant to the 2008 revision can stand in light of the EPA’s obligation under this Court’s decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. to justify changed findings that underlie changed regulation.
13-1227 Crews v. Farina Whether a habeas court may evade the highly deferential standard of review in the habeas statute by characterizing its legal and policy differences with the state court as unreasonable factual determinations and grant the writ on the basis of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel when the state court held that the cross-examination of the mitigation witness was not fundamental error under state law.
13-1216 Missouri Gas Energy v. Kansas Division of Property Evaluation Whether a state may, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, impose an ad valorem tax on natural gas that is being transported through interstate commerce but temporarily stored in the state by a common carrier, even though the taxpayer has no control over where the gas is stored and no other connection with the state.
13-1178 Kirby v. Marvel Characters (1) Whether a court can constitutionally take copyrights to works originally owned and authored by an independent contractor and hand them to a private party by judicially re-designating them “works for hire;” (2) whether “employer” under the Copyright Act of 1909 can be judicially extended beyond conventional employment to independent contractors, when this contradicts its common law meaning, binding Supreme Court precedent and longstanding canons of statutory construction; and (3) whether “work for hire” can be determined based on post-creation contingencies, like discretionary payment, when authorship and ownership of a copyrightable work, including “work for hire,” vests at inception.
13-1175 City of Los Angeles v. Patel (1) Whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry, and if so, whether the ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry.
13-1153 Deemer v. Beard Whether the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey applies when federal habeas relief was unavailable as a practical matter to a Section 1983 plaintiff.
13-1125 Mehanna v. U.S. Whether a citizen’s political and religious speech may constitute provision of “material support or resources” to a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) under the “coordination” rubric of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, when the government conceded that petitioner was not instructed by the FTO, and the evidence showed that he did not interact with the FTO, but rather viewed, translated, and disseminated materials of his own choosing, while expressing moral support for certain views of the FTO, and associating on the Internet with persons who the government claims had themselves associated with the FTO.
13-946 Lopez v. Smith Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the deferential standard of review required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when it granted federal habeas relief from a state murder conviction on the ground that the prosecutor's request for an aiding-and-abetting instruction at the jury-instruction conference violated a putative constitutional right to prior notice of the government's theory of prosecution - a right that has been recognized in the court of appeals' own precedents, but not established by any holding of this Court.
13-254 Runyon v. U.S. (1) Whether, in order to demonstrate that evidentiary errors in a capital sentencing proceeding were harmless, the government must establish that the errors did not affect the verdict of the jury that actually heard the case or whether the government may instead meet its burden by demonstrating that such errors would not have affected a hypothetical, reasonable jury; and (2) whether, under the cumulative error doctrine, a reviewing court must reverse if the government cannot establish that preserved errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or is reversal required only if the errors “so fatally infect[ed] the trial that they violated the trial’s fundamental fairness.”

Petitions Not Set for Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
14-153 Rainey v. Bostic Whether Virginia violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples and by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed outside of Virginia.
14-136 Smith v. Bishop Whether the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbid the State of Oklahoma from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
14-124 Herbert v. Kitchen Whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman.
14-114 King v. Burwell Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through Exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
14-77 Kolon Industries, Incorporated v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b), the federal recusal statute, a federal judge is relieved of his mandatory statutory duty of self-disqualification simply because neither party filed a timely motion to disqualify the judge.
14-71 Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC (1) Whether the Third Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to the decisions of this Court and the law in the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, that a trustee in bankruptcy can settle the tort claims of those injured by a company that filed for bankruptcy when the debtor company could neither bring the claim at the commencement of the bankruptcy nor was injured in any way by the underlying allegations; and (2) whether the Third Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to the law in the First, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, that a claim is general and belongs to the estate simply because other claimants could take advantage of a finding of successor liability, rather than finding it is specific and can go forward because it is unique to these plaintiffs.
14-63 Bonner v. City of Brighton, Michigan (1) Whether certiorari should be granted to resolve the conflicting decisions between the Michigan Supreme Court and other states' courts as to whether an ordinance violates substantive and procedural due process when it creates a presumption that an unsafe structure shall be demolished as a public nuisance if the cost to repair the structure would exceed its value and when the ordinance does not afford the owner an option to repair as a matter of right; and (2) whether the Brighton code of ordinances § 18-59 is facially unconstitutional, in violation of both substantive and procedural due process, where it creates a presumption that an unsafe structure shall be demolished as a public nuisance if the cost to repair the structure would exceed 100% of the structure's true cash value as reflected in assessment tax rolls before the structure became unsafe and does not afford the owner of such a structure an option to repair as a matter of right.
14-62 Anthem Prescription Management, LLC v. Beeman and Pharmacy Services, dba Beemans Pharmacy Whether a law is subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment when it compels a company to engage in speech with its clients for a purpose other than preventing consumer deception.
14-59 Schultz v. Wescom (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held - in conflict with the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, but in accord with the Seventh Circuit - that a district court's order striking or refusing to consider a qualified immunity motion is not subject to interlocutory appeal, even when it subjects a public official to unlimited discovery for the duration of a lawsuit; and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity.
14-56 City of Newport Beach, California v. Pacific Shores Properties, LLC Whether a disparate-treatment claim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., that challenges a facially nondiscriminatory law on the ground that the law nevertheless intentionally discriminates on the basis of disability can prevail absent proof of discriminatory effects.
14-19 Teo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether a court in a Securities and Exchange Commission civil enforcement action can order defendants to disgorge profits that were not attributable to their violations of the securities laws but were instead earned as a result of an intervening event unrelated to those violations.
14-15 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center (1) Whether the Supremacy Clause gives Medicaid providers a private right of action to enforce 42 § 1396a(a)(30)(A) against a state where Congress chose not to create enforceable rights under that statute; and (2) whether, if Medicaid providers have a private right of action, a state's Medicaid provider reimbursement rates are preempted by 42 § 1396a(a)(30)(A) where they do not bear a reasonable relationship to provider costs and remain in place for budgetary reasons.
14-1 AEP Energy Services v. Heartland Regional Medical Center (1) Whether due process permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over non-consenting, out-of-state defendants based on the plaintiffs’ bare allegation that the defendants engaged in a nationwide conspiracy outside the forum that had an intended effect inside the forum (as well as presumably in every other state); and (2) whether due process permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over non-consenting, out-of-state defendants when the defendants’ limited forum conduct bears no causal relationship to the plaintiffs’ claim.
13-1547 Ridley School District v. M. R., as Parents of E. R., a Minor Whether operation of a “stay-put” provision in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) – which requires that a child whose educational program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is under dispute to remain in his or her then-current placement while statutory “proceedings” to resolve the dispute are pending – terminates upon entry of a final judgment by a state or federal trial court in favor of the school district, as the D.C. and Sixth Circuits have held, or whether it continues until completion of any subsequent appeal of that judgment, as the Third and Ninth Circuits have held.
13-1520 The Episcopal Church v. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (1) Whether the First Amendment or Jones v. Wolf requires courts to enforce express trusts recited in general-church governing documents (as some jurisdictions hold), or whether such a trust is enforceable only when it would otherwise comply with state law (as others hold); (2) whether retroactive application of the neutral-principles approach infringes free-exercise rights; and (3) whether the neutral-principles approach endorsed in Jones remains a constitutionally viable means of resolving church-property disputes, especially in light of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.
13-1516 Kalamazoo County Road Commission v. Deleon Whether it is an “adverse employment action” for a discrimination claim, or a “materially adverse action” for a retaliation claim, when an employer grants an employee's request for a job transfer.
13-1504 Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York, New York (1) Whether compelling a noncommercial pro-life speaker to declare it lacks a medical license passes strict scrutiny; and (2) whether a compelled speech law is unconstitutionally vague if the City can deem speakers as needing to comply, because of their “appearance,” without any ability for the speaker to know whether it must comply.
13-1499 Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.
13-1496 Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members.
13-1491 Cuti v. U.S. Whether a witness may give opinion testimony based in part on specialized knowledge and in part on personal experience, including answering counterfactual hypothetical questions, without satisfying the reliability and disclosure requirements for expert testimony of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
13-1487 Henderson v. U.S. Whether a felony conviction, which makes it unlawful for the defendant to possess a firearm, prevents a court under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under general equity principles from ordering that the government (1) transfer noncontraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property interests; or (2) sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant.
13-1421 Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett Whether, under Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void,” a chapter 7 debtor may “strip off” a junior mortgage lien in its entirety when the outstanding debt owed to a senior lienholder exceeds the current value of the collateral.
13-1416 Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. Whether an order denying confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is appealable.
13-1412 City and County of San Francisco, California v. Sheehan (1) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody; and (2) whether it was clearly established that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within.
13-1406 Perez v. Stephens Whether attorney abandonment, which Maples v. Thomas held is an “extraordinary circumstance” equitably excusing a resulting failure to appeal a denial of state habeas relief, is likewise an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting reentry of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) where the abandonment caused the failure to appeal a denial of federal habeas relief.
13-1402 Kerry v. Din (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's alien spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether respondent is entitled to challenge in court the refusal of a visa to her husband and to require the government, in order to sustain the refusal, to identify a specific statutory provision rendering him inadmissible and to allege what it believes he did that would render him ineligible for a visa.
13-1333 Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson Whether, under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a “strike” while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed.
13-1309 Battles v. U.S. Whether, when the district court disposes of a motion for a new trial while an appeal is pending in the court of appeals, a defendant must file a second notice of appeal in order for the court of appeals to have jurisdiction to consider the issue that was before the district court in the motion for a new trial.
13-1162 Purdue Pharma L.P. v. U.S. ex rel. May (1) Whether the False Claims Act’s pre-2010 “public-disclosure bar,” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) (2009), prohibits claims that are “substantially similar” to prior public disclosures, or instead bars a claim only if the plaintiff’s knowledge “actually derives” from prior disclosures; (2) whether the False Claims Act’s “first-to-file” bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), precludes a later-filed action that is based on the same facts as an earlier-filed action only so long as the earlier case is still pending; and (3) whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3287, suspends the limitations period for civil claims, such as a False Claims Act claim brought by a private party.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22o142 Florida v. Georgia Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region.
13-1241 KBR, Incorporated v. Metzgar (1) Whether the political question doctrine bars state-law tort claims against a battlefield support contractor operating in an active war zone when adjudication of those claims would necessarily require examining sensitive military judgments; (2) whether the Federal Tort Claim Act's “combatant-activities exception,” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j), preempts state-law tort claims against a battlefield support contractor that arise out of the U.S. military's combatant activities in a theater of combat; and (3) whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity bars state-law tort claims against a private contractor performing delegated public functions where the government would be immune from suit if it performed the same functions.
13-1067 OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs (1) Whether, for purposes of determining when an entity is an “agent” of a “foreign state” under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), the express definition of “agency” in the FSIA, the factors set forth in First National City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, or common law principles of agency, control; and (2) whether, under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), a tort claim for personal injuries suffered in connection with travel outside of the United States is “based upon” the allegedly tortious conduct occurring outside of the United States or the preceding sale of the ticket in the United States for the travel entirely outside the United States.
13-1044 Cisco Systems v. Commil USA, LLC Whether, and in what circumstances, the Seventh Amendment permits a court to order a partial retrial of induced patent infringement without also retrying the related question of patent invalidity.
13-956 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Superior Court of California, Orange County Whether the California Court of Appeal erred when it deepened an acknowledged circuit split and held—contrary to this Court's decisions in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee and PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing; the decisions of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in Morris v. PLIVA, Inc. and Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC; and the plain language of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”)—that federal law does not preempt state tort claims predicated on allegations that a generic drug manufacturer violated the FDCA by failing to immediately implement or otherwise disseminate notice of labeling changes that the United States Food and Drug Administration had approved for use on a generic drug product's brand-name equivalent.
13-896 Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. required retrial on the issue of intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where the jury (A) found the defendant had actual knowledge of the patent and (B) was instructed that “[i]nducing third-party infringement cannot occur unintentionally.”
13-852 Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist Whether a state can restrict a national bank’s exercise of its fiduciary powers in connection with real property in that state if the bank is authorized to act as a fiduciary by the Comptroller of the Currency and not prohibited from doing so by the (different) state in which the bank is “located” under 12 U.S.C. § 92a and 12 C.F.R. § 9.7.
13-817 Kellogg Brown & Root Services v. Harris (1) Whether the political question doctrine bars state-law tort claims against a battlefield support contractor operating in an active war zone when adjudication of those claims would necessarily require examining sensitive military judgments; (2) whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's “combatant-activities exception,” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j), preempts state-law tort claims against a battlefield support contractor that arise out of the U.S. military's combatant activities in a theater of combat.
13-791 Moores v. Hildes Whether a plaintiff may state a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides for strict liability “on account of” defective registration statements, where he made an irrevocable investment decision to acquire his securities before a registration statement covering the issuance of those securities existed.
13-720 Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises Whether this Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.”
13-550 Tibble v. Edison Int'l (1) Notwithstanding the ongoing nature of ERISA's fiduciary duties, whether the statute of limitations under 29 U.S.C. §1113(1) immunizes 401(k) plan fiduciaries for retaining imprudent investments that continue to cause the plan losses if the funds were first included in the plan more than six years ago; and (2) whether Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch deference applies to fiduciary breach actions under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(2), where the fiduciary allegedly violated the terms of the governing plan document in a manner that favors the financial interests of the plan sponsor at the expense of plan participants.

Petitions Held for Another Conference

N/A

Term Snapshot
Awards