Opinions

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 09-1403, June 6, 2011

In this securities fraud case, the district court denied the Petitioner’s application for class action certification, finding that it must be able to prove that the misrepresentation caused the claimed economic loss in order to be certified. The Fifth Circuit agreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts reversed, holding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant case law do not require a plaintiff to prove loss causation in order to proceed as a class. Daniel Fisher offered a nice review in Forbes, and looked at how the Court seems to be taking a restrained approach in the broader class action debate. Alison Frankel at Thomson Reuters examined the state of securities class action litigation before and after the ruling.

Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 09-1159, June 6, 2011

In the 1980’s, a researcher working for both Stanford University and the Respondent’s predecessor in interest developed certain AIDs testing procedures. The ensuing patent fight turned on competing interpretations of the Bayh-Dole Act, a federal law that allocates rights to inventions that arise out of government-funded research. The Court (C.J. Roberts wrote the opinion; J. Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion; J. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by J. Ginsburg) held that the Act’s allocation scheme does not amount to an automatic grant of patent ownership to the inventor’s employer. While Stanford expressed concern about the broader impact of the ruling, the Mercury News notes that the assignment issue presented in the case can be easily resolved with revised patent agreements. Gene Quinn at IPWatchdog summarized the ruling, and discussed the social and commercial benefits that have resulted from the Bayh-Dole Act, declaring, “It is not at all an exaggeration to say that Bayh-Dole is one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted into law.”

McNeill v. United States, 10-5258, June 6, 2011

The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for unlawful firearms possession by a felon who has three prior convictions for a violent felony or “serious drug offense.” The Act goes on to define a “serious drug offense” as “an offense under State law . . . , for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” The Petitioner admitted that his predicate drug offenses carried a 10-year maximum sentence at the time he committed those crimes, but he argued that the Act should not be applied to him because the maximum penalty had been reduced by the time of his sentencing on the present firearms conviction. A unanimous Court (J. Thomas wrote the opinion) disagreed, finding that the Petitioner’s proposed interpretation would be unworkable and inconsistent with the clear intent of the Act. The Courthouse News Service summarized the opinion.

Fox v. Vice, 10-114, June 6, 2011

The Petitioner sued the Respondent claiming state and federal causes of action. The federal trial court dismissed the federal claims as frivolous. The Respondent sought an award for all of his attorney’s fees without distinguishing the costs associated with the federal claims from those of the non-frivolous state claims, and the court granted the motion finding that the litigation efforts had focused on the federal claims. The Court (J. Kagan for a unanimous Court) reversed the district and circuit courts, and held that when considering an award of attorney’s fees, a court must undertake a but-for analysis of the prevailing party’s cost particulars. Said the Court, “In a suit of this kind, involving both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a defendant may recover the reasonable attorney’s fees he expended solely because of the frivolous allegations. And that is all.” Debra Cassens Weiss looked at this early Kagan opinion in the ABA Journal.

Orders of Note

Bradford v. Thaler, 09-11519, May 27, 2001

The Court declined to stay the Petitioner’s execution and denied his motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing. On Wednesday, the State of Texas executed Bradford. Reuters described the Petitioner’s 1988 murder of a grocery store security guard and some of the particulars of his last day.