|
 Bell
Atlantic v Twombly Decided 5.21.07
- A claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC
1, requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest
that an agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a bare
assertion of conspiracy will not suffice
- Under the plausibility standard, plaintiffs
claim of conspiracy in restraint of trade came up short
KSR
International v Teleflex Decided
4.30.07
-
Held, 9-0
- Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot
be held "obvious", and thus unpatentable under 35 USC § 1O3(a), in the
absence of some proven "'teaching, suggestion, or motivation' that would have
led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art
teachings in the manner claimed"
Microsoft
v AT&T Decided 4.30.07
- Because Microsoft does not export from the United
States the copies of Windows installed on the foreign-made computers in
question, Microsoft does not suppl[y] . . . from the United States
components of those computers, and therefore is not liable under §271(f)as
currently written
Global
Crossing v Metrophones Decided 4.17.07
- The FCCs application of 201(b) to the carriers
refusal to pay compensation is lawful; and, given the linkage with 207, 207
authorizes this federal-court lawsuit
Watters
v Wachovia Decided 4.17.07
- Wachovias mortgage business, whether conducted
by the bank itself or through the banks operating subsidiary, is subject to
OCCs superintendence, and not to the licensing, reporting, and visitorial
regimes of the several States in which the subsidiary operates.
- Watters alternative argument, that 12 CFR
7.4006 violates the Tenth Amendment, is unavailing
Massachusetts
v EPA Decided 4.02.07
- Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to
issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not
enumerated in section 202(a)(1)
- Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to
regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change
under section 202(a)(1)
Environmental
Defense v Duke Energy Decided 4.02.07
- Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision violated
Section 307(b) of the Act, which provides that national Clean Air Act
regulations are subject to challenge "only" in the DC Circuit by petition for
review filed within 60 days of their promulgation, and "shall not be subject to
judicial review" in enforcement proceedings, 42 USC 7607(b); and
- Whether the Act's definition of "modification,"
which turns on whether there is an "increase" in emissions and which applies to
both the NSPS and PSD programs, rendered unlawful EPA's longstanding regulatory
test defining PSD "increases" by reference to actual, annual emissions
Leegin
Creative Leather v PSK Argued 3.26.07
-
Question presented
Whether vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements should be deemed
per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or whether they should
instead be evaluated under the rule of reason
-
This Court has held that antitrust "per se rules are appropriate only for
conduct that . . . would always or almost always tend to restrict competition."
Modern economic analysis establishes that vertical minimum resale price
maintenance does not meet this condition because the practice often has
substantial competition enhancing effects
Weyerhaeuser
v Ross-Simmons Hardwood Decided 2.20.07
-
Opinion
-
Question presented
The question in this case is whether a plaintiff alleging predatory buying may,
as the Ninth Circuit held, establish liability by persuading a jury that the
defendant purchased more inputs "than it needed" or paid a higher price for
those inputs "than necessary," so as "to prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaining
the [inputs] they needed at a fair price"; or whether the plaintiff instead must
satisfy what the Ninth Circuit termed the "higher" Brooke Group standard by
showing that the defendant (1) paid so much for raw materials that the price at
which it sold its products did not coyer its costs and (2) had a dangerous
probability of recouping its losses
-
In Brooke Group Ltd v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US 209 (1993), the
Court held that an antitrust plaintiff alleging predatory selling must prove
that the defendant (1) sold its product at a price level too low to cover its
costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses once the
scheme of predation succeeded
Philip
Morris USA v Williams Decided
2.20.07
SEC_CODE_REF_0090001192884
- Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive
damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's, conduct was highly
reprehensible and analogous to a crime can "override" the constitutional
requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the plaintiffs harm
- Whether due process permits a jury to punish a
defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties
MedImmune
v Genentech Decided 1.09.07
-
Opinion
-
Question presented
Does Article III's grant of jurisdiction of "all Cases . . . arising under . . .
the Laws of the United States," implemented in the "actual controversy"
requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), require a
patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the
license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable or
not infringed?
|
Digests
selected Supreme Court cases
