Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-873 | 6th Cir. | Dec 3, 2013 | Mar 25, 2014 | 9-0 | Scalia | OT 2013 |
Holding: Static Control has adequately pleaded the elements of a Lanham Act cause of action for false advertising: an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant"s misrepresentation.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 25, 2014.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Scalia treatise on standing law gives Sixth Circuit first affirmance of the year (Ronald Mann, March 28, 2014)
- Argument analysis: Argument in standing case presages rare win for Sixth Circuit (Ronald Mann, December 5, 2013)
- Argument preview: Justices to descend into morass of standing doctrine (Ronald Mann, November 29, 2013)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, May 25, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 01/14/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 15, 2013) |
| 02/15/2013 | Waiver of right of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. to respond filed. |
| 02/27/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013. |
| 03/01/2013 | Response Requested . (Due April 1, 2013) |
| 03/25/2013 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 1, 2013. |
| 05/01/2013 | Brief of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. in opposition filed. |
| 05/10/2013 | Reply of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed. |
| 05/14/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013. |
| 06/03/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 06/05/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent. |
| 06/20/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of niether party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| 06/21/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2013. |
| 06/21/2013 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 15, 2013. |
| 08/16/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| 08/16/2013 | Brief of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed. |
| 08/22/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. |
| 08/22/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. |
| 08/23/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors in support of neither party filed. |
| 09/17/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday December 3, 2013 |
| 09/17/2013 | CIRCULATED |
| 09/19/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 10/15/2013 | Brief of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/17/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/22/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/12/2013 | Reply of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/15/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Kentucky is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 12/03/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: Steven B. Loy, Lexington, Ky. For respondent: Jameson R. Jones, Denver, Colo. |
| 01/17/2014 | Record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Kentucky. The record is electronic (Not on PACER). |
| 03/25/2014 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 04/28/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 08/01/2014 | Record returned for U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Kentucky. |
Issue: Whether the appropriate analytic framework for determining a party”s standing to maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is (1) the factors set forth in”Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters”as adopted by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; (2) the categorical test, permitting suits only by an actual competitor, employed by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits; or (3) a version of the more expansive “reasonable interest” test, either as applied by the Sixth Circuit in this case or as applied by the Second Circuit in prior cases.