Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 10-290, June 9, 2011
The Respondent sued Microsoft for infringing its computer document editing patent, and Microsoft countered that the patent was invalid. Microsoft appealed the district court’s holding that an invalidity defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. A unanimous Court (J. Sotomayor wrote the opinion; J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion, joined by J. Scalia and J. Alito; J. Thomas filed a concurring opinion; C.J. Roberts did not participate) affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that case law, statutory interpretation, and legislative history all urge the conclusion that Congress intended to apply the clear-and-convincing standard. The Globe and Mail offered some background on the little Canadian company that beat back Microsoft. PC World looked at how the ruling impacts different players in the technology sector. The Post-Intelligencer and Computerworld each noted language in the opinion that might allow litigants like Microsoft to get more favorable jury instructions in future infringement trials.
DePierre v. United States, 09-1533, June 9, 2011
The Court here interpreted federal statutes that provide one minimum sentence for “cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers,” and a higher minimum sentence for “cocaine base.” Quick contraband chemistry primer (for those of you who missed that day in home-ec): cocaine paste straight from the coca plant is a chemical base; process the paste with acid, and a cocaine salt–powder cocaine–results; re-process the powder cocaine with other chemical bases, and you get either crack cocaine or freebase, both being cocaine bases; base cocaine is smoked, and powder cocaine is snorted. Testimony at the Petitioner’s trial showed that the substance he sold to a police informant was base cocaine, but did not contain the chemical base typically used to make crack. The trial court did not accept the Petitioner’s argument that the higher sentencing minimum should only be applied to crack cocaine. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion for a unanimous Court (J. Scalia filed a concurring opinion) acknowledged interpretational challenges in the statute, but held that the higher sentence should be applied for any substance that is chemically base cocaine. The Courthouse News reviewed the case, and took a long look at Justice Scalia’s acerbic concurring opinion.
Sykes v. United States, 09-11311, June 9, 2011
In the second of two cases this week that examine the predicate elements of the Armed Career Criminal Act–Monday’s McNeill v. United States, 10-5258 was the other–the Court found (J. Kennedy wrote the opinion; J. Thomas filed a concurring opinion; J. Scalia filed a dissent; J. Kagan filed a dissent, joined by J. Ginsburg) that a conviction for felony vehicular flight is a “violent felony” that can be used to enhance the Petitioner’s sentence. Comparing the vehicular flight infraction to some of the other crimes that are expressly listed in the Act–arson and burglary, for example–the Court found that using a car to flee the police “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury” to others, and is therefore violence. Aghast at the majority’s “tutti-frutti” opinion, and at Congress’s failure to write definitive laws, Justice Scalia wrote that the Act’s residual clause should be declared void for vagueness. The Washington Post sorted out the opinions and the ideological realignment that came together for this decision. Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic looked at how the legislative failures that drove Scalia’s dissent are driving the judiciary to become more activist out of necessity.
Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 10-313, June 9, 2011
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local telephone carriers to provide their competitors access to certain elements of their infrastructure at rates based on cost. The FCC promulgated rules to implement the Act. In this dispute over access and rates, a unanimous Court (J. Thomas wrote the opinion; J. Scalia filed a concurring opinion; J. Kagan did not participate) held that the FCC’s rules and interpretations are reasonable and should be accorded deference. UPI outlined the case and holding.