contents and context
An independent student publication, LIIBULLETIN is a Cornell Law School electronic journal. Its editorial board comprises second- and third-year law students, who are responsible for every aspect of the journal's management, from selecting decisions for commentary to researching, writing, editing, and producing the journal content in HTML. Since 2004-05, the bulletin has covered cases currently before the US Supreme Court. Bulletin content is available on this site and by (free) email subscription. See the Cornell Chronicle's 2004 article and 2007 article on this liibulletin project.
what's new?
Contratulations to the 2008-09 editorial board!
featured previews
(See all 2007-08 oral argument previews; term prospective)
DEREGULATION, ENERGY, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, FEDERAL POWER ACT
Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility Dist. 1 (06-1457); Calpine Energy Svcs. v. Public Utility Dist. 1 (06-1462)
Oral argument: Feb. 19, 2008
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Dec. 19, 2006)
During the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, a combination of factors, including criminal activity, drastically inflated spot market prices for energy. This situation caused electrical utility Public Utility Dist. 1 Snohomish County and the other respondents in this case (“local utilities”), to enter into forward contracts with energy suppliers (the petitioners in this case). After the crisis receded, the local utilities clamed that artificially inflated spot price at the time forward contracts were signed had affected the rates set in those contracts, and they asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to make the contracts void. The Commission declined, citing several Supreme Court cases stating that the Commission should defer to rates set through a valid contractual process. The local utilities appealed and the Ninth Circuit ruled in their favor, holding that FERC’s decision was based on an incorrect standard of review because it failed to consider the possible effect of spot market price manipulation on the forward contracts. The court, therefore, remanded the case back to FERC for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted the suppliers’ petition for certiorari to reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The decision in this case will affect energy suppliers, distributors, and consumers.
PATENT LAW, PATENT EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE, INFRINGEMENT, LICENSE, ROYALTY
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (06-937)
Oral argument: Jan. 16, 2008
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (July 7, 2006)
In the latest Supreme Court case on patent law, LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) sued Quanta Computers, Inc. (Quanta) for patent infringement. A patent license agreement between LGE and Intel allowed Intel to use LGE’s patents but required Intel to notify its customers, including Quanta, that its license did not extend to third-party purchasers’ combinations of Intel and non-Intel components. LGE alleges that Quanta infringed LGE’s patents by combining Intel and non-Intel components. LGE argued that Intel’s sale to Quanta did not exhaust LGE’s rights as a patent holder, allowing LGE to sue Quanta. Quanta, however, argued that Intel’s authorized sale to Quanta exhausted LGE’s patent rights. The Federal Circuit agreed with LGE, holding that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply because the notice provided by Intel to Quanta created a conditional sale, and that sales of patented devices do not exhaust a patent holder’s methods claims. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether a patent holder can sue customers who use patented components purchased from licensees. The outcome of this case will clarify the exhaustion doctrine generally and will help define the scope of patent holders’ rights, including their ability to collect royalties from and sue downstream users of their patents.
Continues...PERSONAL INJURY, CONFLICT OF LAWS, PREEMPTION, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, FDA APPROVAL, FRAUD-ON-THE-FDA
Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent (06-1498)
Oral argument: February 25, 2008
Appealed from: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Oct. 5, 2006)
Under Michigan law, individuals may bring personal injury suits against manufacturers of FDA-approved prescription drugs only if the plaintiffs can show that FDA approval depended on fraudulent submission or withholding of information. 27 Michigan residents sued Warner-Lambert Co., claiming personal injury arising from using Rezulin, Warner-Lambert’s FDA-approved drug for diabetes treatment. Warner-Lambert argues that Michigan law is preempted by federal law because permitting state courts to second-guess the FDA’s product-approval and fraud-detection processes interferes with the agency’s essential functions and promotes regulatory uncertainty. The Michigan plaintiffs respond that federal preemption does not apply to traditional state tort claims. The decision in this case will clarify the scope of FDA autonomy in policing the drug-approval process and plaintiffs’ freedom to assert state tort claims in areas regulated by federal entities.
2006-07 term
2005-06 term