Blog Archives

Sketches of Supreme Court arguments

MS Drug Patent Argument

Usually trial courts are the exclusive finders of facts and appellate courts are limited to questions of law, but apparently that’s not necessarily the case when it comes to patent law. In a dispute between Teva Pharmaceuticals, which holds the patent on the very profitable multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone, and companies that want to begin marketing a generic version the trial court sided with Teva. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reviews patent cases, however, looks at all elements of a patent claim as legal issues, including the factual conclusions of the trial court and reversed.

Even though Teva’s patent expires in September of next year the amount of money at stake is huge – in the billions. Also at stake is a shift of power from the Federal Circuit.

The case is Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz

Here are my sketches and a link to Lyle’s SCOTUSblog analysis of the argument.

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: ,

I Am Not An Anti-Dentite . . .

. . . nor do I have anything against teeth whitening. I suppose it is an important case, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTCabout whether state licensing boards made up of private professionals may violate anti-trust laws, and the argument was lively, but I’ll just post my two sketches and a link to Adam Liptak’s article and call it a night.

Liptak’s NYT story here.

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , ,

The Long and Short of Prison Beards

Arkansas prisons limit the length of inmates’ beards to a quarter inch. One of those inmates, a Muslim whose faith requires a full beard, tried to compromise by only growing his beard to a half inch but that was still too long for the warden. Contraband might be concealed in the half-inch beard, or the inmate could change his appearance to evade detection by shaving the beard.

None of those arguments were even considered plausible by the justices when the case, Holt v. Hobbs, was argued today. Justice Alito suggested using a comb on the beard “to see if a SIM card – or a revolver – falls out.” And Scalia asked why not take a photo of the inmate before he grows the beard?

“You’re really just making your case too easy”, the chief justice told petitioner’s lawyer, Douglas Laycock pictured above.

Arkansas Deputy Attorney General David A. Curran didn’t have much to show why the courts should defer to the bureau of prisons.

All bets are that the Court votes 9-0; not even close to a close shave.

 

 

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , , ,

In Other Supreme Court News . . .

While the big news today was the denial of all same-sex marriage ban petitions the Court also heard its first argument of the term, Heien v. North Carolina, a Fourth Amendment “reasonable” search case from the home town of Andy Griffith: Mt Airy, North Carolina.

In April, 2009, Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Darisse – pictured above with beard (and dislexically id’d) as he waited in line for a seat in the courtroom this morning – was working “criminal interdiction” on Highway 77 when he pulled over a vehicle for having a stop light out. After asking permission to search the vehicle officers found a baggie of cocaine and the owner of the car, Nicholas Heien, was arrested along with the driver.

It turns out, however, that North Carolina law only requires “a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle” and since Heien’s car still had one good light the stop was illegal, and the cocaine “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

The question is whether the search was reasonable. After all, most of us would expect two working stop lights to be the law, and were surprised to learn otherwise (at least in NC). On the other hand ignorance of the law is no excuse for most defendants, so why should a police officer be allowed a mistake when enforcing the laws?

Not much has yet been published on today’s argument, and I have to confess that I get most of my information after the fact from what I read. I find it very difficult to draw and at the same time follow the thread of the argument; must be different parts of the brain – plus my wife says I’m hard-of-hearing. I did manage to pick up that Justice Scalia was never satisfied with the answer he got form petitioner’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher.

Above is my best drawing of the day, I think. Great subject.

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , ,

Fourth Amendment Limits on Cell Phone Searches?

The Supreme Court today heard arguments in two cases concerning warrantless searches of cell phones. The old rules about searching belongings and the immediate area in the course of an arrest need to be reassessed now that most people carry a great deal of information around on their smartphones.

Lyle Denniston’s argument recap is here. The rest of my sketches are posted below.

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: ,

Whistleblower Free Speech and Breyer Holds Up Some Fingers

Edward Lane was fired from his job at an Alabama community college after testifying truthfully before a grand jury and at trial about corruption at the college. Lane sued saying he was let go in retaliation, but the lower courts, citing an earlier Supreme Court opinion, ruled against him. He was represented at the Court by lawyer Tejinder Singh, who I have to say was fun to draw.

On the other side of the argument were Alabama’s Attorney General, who’s drawing I never finished, and lawyer Mark Waggoner, who was at the lectern a bit longer.

You can read about it here.

Earlier, the Court heard arguments in a patent case, Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments. Biosig has a patent on a device used in exercise machines to measure heart rate. It’s basically a bar with incorporated electrodes that receive signals from contact with a person’s hands. Nautilus claims the patent is too vague, particularly in describing the placement of the electrodes.

Now comes Justice Breyer, “I’m a little confused here. Imagine there are two kinds of electrodes, a blue one and a green one, and you have a blue one and green one on left hand and a blue one and green one on right hand. . . you cannot let them touch . . .  I got that. And suppose on your left hand you put the blue one here and the green one there. And in the right hand, you put the blue in here and the green in here. . . . Does it work or not?”

And so it goes for awhile until Justice Scalia interrupts, “Let the record show that [Justice Breyer] is holding his fingers in the air.”

Anyway, it’s all “insolubly ambiguous”.

 

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , , ,

Old News or Yesterday’s Sketches Today

Overshadowed by yesterday’s affirmative action opinion in Schuette were arguments in two newsworthy cases, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and ABC v. Aereo.

“Ministry of Truth” was the Orwellian label SBA List’s lawyer, Michael Carvin, used when referring to an Ohio law that makes it a crime to use false statement in an election campaign.

The lawyer for the State of Ohio reminded the Court that issue is not the constitutionality of the law, but whether plaintiffs can show harm.

The second case argued was about a company, Aereo, Inc., that stores broadcast TV programs, which it then makes available to consumers who pay for an individual “antenna”. The broadcast networks say this is simply a work around to avoid copyright.

The lawyer for Aereo, David Frederick, tried to convince the Justices that his client only “is attempting to entice consumers to replicate on the cloud what they can do at home at lower cap costs and more efficiency.”

“. . if all they have is a gimmick,” said Clement in rebuttal, “then they probably will go out of business and nobody should cry a tear over that.”

 

 

 

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , , ,

Argentina and POM Wonderful

The Supreme Court heard two cases today, the first day April’s two-week argument session after which the Court will only sit to deliver this term’s opinions.

The first case, Argentina v. NML Capital, concerns Argentina’s default on bonds the government issued in 1997, and stopped repayments when the domestic economy tanked in 2001. The issue before the Court is how far can creditors go in searching for assets.

The second argument, POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, is about truth-in-labeling. Was Coca-Cola guilty of false advertising under the Lanham Act when it labeled its product “Pomegranate Blueberry” even though it was mostly apple juice with only 0.3% pomegranate and 0.2% blueberry? POM Wonderful, which grows and sells pomegranate products, especially juice, thinks so.

The two sides certainly brought the heavy-hitters, former Solicitor General Seth Waxman and Stanford Law professor Kathleen Sullivan, to the lectern.

Though, not everyone found the arguments riveting.

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , ,

Between Scylla and Charybdis

I neglected to post sketches from the March 31 arguments in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International. Here they are, better late than never.

Each day CLS Bank does about $5 trillion in transactions and uses a computer program to insure that everything balances out at the end of the day. Alice Corporation has a patent on an application that does the same thing by creating shadow accounts for all parties and not allowing transactions to go through unless all credits and debits balance out above zero.

The Court has previously held that natural processes (Mayo) and abstract ideas (Bilski) are not patentable. Is Alice Corporation’s patent really just the idea of solvency applied by a computer to balance the books?

Justice Breyer’s pharaohic hypothetical put it this way: “I mean, imagine King Tut sitting in front of the pyramid where all his gold is stored, and he has the habit of giving chits away.  Good for the gold, which is given at the end of the day.  And he hires a man with an abacus, and when the abacus keeping track sees that he’s given away more gold than he has in storage, he says, stop.”

On the other hand, software developers won’t have much incentive if their computer programs are unpatentable.

Again, Justice Breyer, “. . . there are a number of suggestions as to how to go between Scylla and Charybdis.  . . . I need to know what in your opinion is the best way of sailing between these two serious harms.”

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , ,

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities

Supporters lined up behind the owners of two family owned businesses, Anthony Hahn, second from right, and Dave Green, far right, on the lower level of the Supreme Court building this morning. They were waiting to hear arguments in two cases concerning Obamacare’s required contraceptive coverage by for-profit employers. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities both embrace Christian principles that cause them to object to forms of contraception that they believe are tantamount to abortion.

It’s been a long day of lively arguments, lots of drawings, and even a little bit of snow, so forgive me if I forgo further comments and simply post the day’s sketches. There are links at the bottom to reporting on the arguments.

bSC140325_Sotomayor

bSC140325_Kagan

Lyle Denniston’s argument recap here.

NYT story here.

WaPo story here.

And a must-read from Dahlia Lithwick here.

 

 

 

Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court Tagged with: , , , , ,
2013_Blawg100Honoree_300x300
TWITTER @courtartist

Blog Updates

Enter your name and email below to receive blog updates via email.