A new Supreme Court term is once again underway. This one looks to be unique in that it is likely to be an eight-Justice bench into 2017—with Republican leaders standing firm on their refusal to go forward with confirming any nominee appointed by President Obama, it is likely that any new ninth justice will have to wait until after inauguration day to even receive a hearing, much less take the bench.
Justice Scalia’s absence has had at least some effects on the cases that the Court has taken and decided: the Supreme Court has taken cases at a slower pace than in recent years, and toward the end of the last term, showed signs of trying to dispose of cases on narrow grounds that could avoid a 4-4 deadlock. While the docket is thinner than in years past, and while the Court may decide some of its cases on narrower grounds that can get broader support from the eight Justices, the Court still has cases on its docket that the automotive industry should watch carefully. Three of these case include:
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, No. 15-777: Design patents, as the name suggests, cover the design of a product, rather than its utility. A hot issue for the automotive industry, design patents also lie at the heart of long-simmering litigation between these giants of the electronics industry. The Supreme Court is now set to decide an issue regarding the damages to be awarded for infringement of a design patent: whether the design patent owner is entitled to all of the profits the infringing party makes from the sale of a product containing an infringing feature, or just the portion of the profits attributable to that infringing feature. Like smartphones, automobiles (and even portions of automobiles) are complex devices, with several components that each have their own design features; the outcome in this case could help decide what the legal landscape for design patent protection in the automotive sector looks like going forward.
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927: Samsung isn’t the only case that promises to have ripple effects on intellectual property enforcement. The question in SCA Hygiene is whether laches—a defense similar to a statute of limitations, which kicks in where a court determines that a plaintiff delayed his infringement suit and prejudiced defendant by doing so—can cut off a patent infringement claim, even before the six-year statute of limitations set out in the Patent Act expires. The answer may help determine the exposure a defendant faces in a suit brought toward the end of the six-year statute of limitations, particularly where there are indications that the plaintiff knew about the alleged infringement and nonetheless held off on filing suit.
Visa, Inc. v. Osborn, No. 15-961, 15-962: Antitrust plaintiffs see industry groups and associations as a convenient way to show that competitors are communicating and conspiring with one another. In this case, which involves ATM access fees charged by networks composed of thousands of banks apiece, plaintiffs claimed that membership in and agreement to the rules of these networks was sufficient to plead an antitrust conspiracy. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs, and allowed the litigation to proceed. The Supreme Court’s ruling could have a serious impact on the ability of plaintiffs to plead antitrust conspiracies arising from membership in industry groups or joint ventures, and bears watching to see how members of these groups can protect themselves from similar claims going forward.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.