Patent Cases Before the Court

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two important patent cases: Limelight v. Akamai and Nautilus v. Biosig. In addition to this week’s video from Professor David Schwartz on these cases, the Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog has argument analysis and predictions on these two cases. The analyses are written by Professor Christi Guerrini, and the predictions come from Professor Edward Lee. Click the links below to read the posts.

In Nautilus, the Court will decide on the requirement in Section 112 of the Patent Code, which requires patentees to describe their patent claims with sufficient “definiteness”.

In Limelight, the Court considers whether a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement when there has been no direct patent infringement.

Nautilus & Limelight: Inside Two Cases

On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and two days later, the Court heard argument in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. These two patent cases have important implications for intellectual property law. Professor David Schwartz (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues and background of both cases.

Weekly Roundup – April 30, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Director Schmidt offers some perspective on Justice Sotomayor’s first oral dissent

How much free speech protection do public employees have? Professor Sheldon Nahmod explains the importance of this week’s arguments in Lane v. Franks

Can the police search your cell phone without a warrant on arrest? Professor Kim Bailey takes you Inside the Case of this week’s Riley v. California

Professors Christi Guerrini and Ed Lee analyze and predict the winner of the patent case Nautilus v. Biosig

Continue reading

Riley v. California: Inside the Case

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Riley v. California. This case raises a complicated question about technology: Can the police search your cell phone upon arrest without a warrant? Professor Kimberly Bailey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the background of the case and the issues at stake.

Justice Sotomayor’s First Oral Dissent

On Tuesday, for the first time in her five years on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor read a dissent from the bench. This was in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the case in which the six-justice majority upheld Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in its public universities. Oral dissents, as a relatively unusual occurrence, can generate increased attention to a dissent. And a justice’s first oral dissent can be a particularly notable event. For example:

  • Justice Scalia’s first oral dissent came in Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 ruling in which the Court upheld the law creating an independent counsel. Justice Scalia recently referred to this decision upholding “a terrible erosion of presidential power” as his most “wrenching” case.
  • Justice Breyer’s first bench dissent came in United States v. Lopez (1995), decided during his first term on the Court. In Lopez the Court, for the first time since the New Deal, struck down a federal law as beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.
  • Justice Thomas liked the idea of an inaugural oral dissent so much that he tried to do it twice. His first bench dissent came in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the majority struck down Nebraska’s “partial-birth abortion” ban. Then, six years later, he opened his oral dissent in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case involving the rights of prisoners held at Guantanamo, by announcing that it was the first time he had ever read a dissent from the bench.

That Justice Sotomayor chose this particular case for her first oral dissent makes sense. As various media accounts have noted, she has been outspoken in her support for affirmative action programs. In her memoir, Justice Sotomayor recognized that affirmative action played a critical role in her own life. During oral arguments in the Schuette case, she was particularly aggressive in challenging the lawyer defending the affirmative action ban. Her lengthy written dissent, which was joined by Justice Ginsberg, is impassioned and direct. Considering all this, it would be more surprising if she had chosen not to announce her dissent from the bench.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup – April 23, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

VIDEO: This week, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that could shape the future of TV broadcasting. Professor Ed Lee explains the issues in ABC v. Aereo

This week’s oral argument is not the first time the Supreme Court will decide on a First Amendment right to lie. Discover the last case in which the Court faced the issue (and how it might affect the current one) in the latest Drama in the Court post

Prof. Ed Lee analyzes the Aereo case and predicts a winner

The Court ruled this week that Michigan’s voter ban on affirmative action is constitutional. Learn about what the divided Court said

Most other English-speaking countries allow cameras in their Supreme Courts. One writer argues SCOTUS should do the same

Continue reading

The Aereo Case – and Prediction

On April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important copyright case involving Aereo, an Internet TV service from Brooklyn that has the financial backing of media mogul Barry Diller. The case has received a lot of media attention because it pits a disruptive Internet startup against the old-line broadcast TV networks. But it also has the potential to transform the cable industry and the way in which people watch TV.

Continue reading

Lies and the First Amendment

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio law that prohibits intentionally false statements about political candidates. The case itself presents the basic free speech question only obliquely. The central issue before the Court is a technical one: whether a party can even go to court to challenge this kind of law prior to being prosecuted for violating that law. This is a question, in other words, of whether the plaintiff has “standing” to make the First Amendment challenge. But the underlying constitutional question—whether the First Amendment permits the regulation of blatant lies in political campaigns—will surely be part of the tomorrow’s oral argument.

The First Amendment status of lies is not a new issue for the Roberts Court. It was at issue before just two years ago in United States v. Alvarez, a case involving a small town public official who liked to tell stories about himself. In describing his background at a local water board meeting, Xavier Alvarez described himself as a retired marine who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor. This was a bald-faced lie. Alvarez had never even served in the military. It was, as the Court would describe it, “a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him.” Alvarez was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a federal law that prohibited falsely claiming military decorations or medals. Alvarez challenged the law as infringing his First Amendment right to free expression.

Continue reading