This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” under the Patent Act occurs, the scope of the review Strickland v. Washington requires to determine whether an error rendered counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient, the validity of a foreclosure sale that violated 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), and the scope of a federal court’s jurisdiction when determining whether resolution of a state-law claim would involve a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.

The petitions of the week are:

18-185

Issue: Whether, under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, a court must evaluate counsel’s overall performance in determining whether a single error is sufficiently egregious to render counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient.

18-579

Issue: Whether federal courts lack authority to inquire into the nature and scope of an alleged state-law claim in determining whether resolution of that claim would involve interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.

18-600

Issue: Whether, under the Patent Act, an “offer[] to sell” occurs when the offer is actually made or when the offer contemplates that the proposed sale will take place.

18-670
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issues: (1) Whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) applies to foreclosures of properties for which the Federal Housing Finance Authority holds a securitized mortgage solely as trustee for the security holders; and (2) whether a foreclosure sale in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) is void in its entirety, such that an unknowing purchaser can seek to unwind the deal, or whether the statute only prevents extinguishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s liens.

Posted in Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., Connecticut v. Skakel, Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Aurora Barnes, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 4, 2019, 2:40 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/petitions-of-the-week-25/