De novo is a Latin term that means "anew," "from the beginning," or "afresh." When a court hears a case “de novo,” it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case. An appellate court hearing a case “de novo” may&n
Is a district court’s finding that a patent suit is objectively baseless entitled to deference?
Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105, which covers a method of data entry and management used in the context of medical treatment. In 2002, Allcare notified Petitioner Highmark, Inc., a medical insurance provider, that Highmark was infringing on Allcare’s patent. Highmark sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement; Allcare counterclaimed for infringement. After the district court granted summary judgment in Highmark’s favor, Highmark moved for an award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which grants attorneys’ fees for “exceptional cases.” Though the district court granted the award for two of Allcare’s claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the claims de novo and reversed one of them. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the scope of deference given to district courts to find “exceptional cases.” The ruling in this case, in tandem with another case before the Court, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., will impact how long and how readily litigants may pursue future patent cases.
Whether a district court's exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.
Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105 (“the ’105 patent”), which covers a health management system that facilitates interactions among physicians, patients, employers, banks, and insurance companies. See Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.
Is a district court’s finding that a patent suit is objectively baseless entitled to deference?
Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105, which covers a method of data entry and management used in the context of medical treatment. In 2002, Allcare notified Petitioner Highmark, Inc., a medical insurance provider, that Highmark was infringing on Allcare’s patent. Highmark sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement; Allcare counterclaimed for infringement. After the district court granted summary judgment in Highmark’s favor, Highmark moved for an award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which grants attorneys’ fees for “exceptional cases.” Though the district court granted the award for two of Allcare’s claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the claims de novo and reversed one of them. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the scope of deference given to district courts to find “exceptional cases.” The ruling in this case, in tandem with another case before the Court, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., will impact how long and how readily litigants may pursue future patent cases.
Whether a district court's exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.
Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105 (“the ’105 patent”), which covers a health management system that facilitates interactions among physicians, patients, employers, banks, and insurance companies. See Highmark, Inc.
Courts are currently divided as to which of two tests should be used to analyze a regulatory takings challenge to a rent control statute. One test analyzes the challenge under theTakings Clause, inquiring whether the statute substantially advances a legitimate state interest. The other test analyzes the challenge under the Due Process Clause, inquiring merely whether the legislature could have rationally believed that the statute would substantially advance a legitimate state interest -- a less stringent test. The Supreme Court will resolve the issue of which test is to be applied.
In 1997, the Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 257 in reaction to the high gasoline prices in the state. The act, an attempt to curb gas prices for consumers in Hawaii, controls the maximum rent that oil companies operating in the state can receive from dealers who lease company-owned service stations. The aim of the legislature was to have the lessee-dealers ultimately pass their lower operating costs on to consumers.
(1) When a parent removes a child to a foreign state in a case of disputed custody, and the child was too young to acclimate to her surroundings in the previous state, does the Hague Convention’s “habitual residence” standard require the parents to have actually agreed that they intended to raise the child in the previous state to trigger the Hague Convention’s return remedy?
(2) Must appellate courts review lower court determinations of a child’s habitual residence de novo, under a deferential version of de novo review, or for clear error?
This case arises out of a custody dispute between an Italian father, Domenico Taglieri, and an American mother, Michelle Monasky, whose marriage had deteriorated, and where the mother had removed the child to the United States before a court could determine the parents’ custody rights. To determine whether the child must be returned to Italy, the Supreme Court must decide whether to uphold the Sixth Circuit’s order to return the child based on its affirmation of the district court’s determination that the child habitually resided in Italy. Monasky argues that the Hague Convention’s text supports an actual-agreement standard for habitual residence, and that the Hague Convention does not contemplate courts imposing habitual residence on a child when the child’s situation in the state would be precarious and the child lacks meaningful connections with the state. She further argues that the statute, appellate history, and the mixed legal and factual nature of habitual residence support de novo review. Taglieri responds that the lower courts properly applied a fact-sensitive analysis of the child’s situation in Italy and, furthermore, that if “actual agreement” were required, the Hague Convention would under-protect children in hotly disputed custody cases who most need protection. He also contends that clear-error review should apply because habitual residence issues are more factual than legal, and because such review is more expedient, consistent with the Hague Convention’s aims. The outcome of this case will have implications for international child abduction and custody cases involving claims of domestic violence.
(1) Whether a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant’s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
In 2011, Petitioner Michelle Monasky, an American, and Respondent Domenico Taglieri, an Italian, got married in Illinois where they met. Taglieri v. Monasky at 406. Two years later, they moved to Milan, Italy to pursue their careers. Id. In March 2014, Taglieri hit Monasky in the face.
What level of scrutiny should a reviewing court apply to a state’s ethics provision regarding when an elected official must recuse himself from a vote?
The Nevada Commission on Ethics (“Commission”) censured Michael Carrigan, a city council member, for voting to issue a permit to a company employing his friend and campaign manager as a consultant. The Commission alleges that Carrigan violated a catch-all recusal provision requiring an official to disqualify himself when faced with a personal interest in a matter “substantially similar” to several enumerated interests. Carrigan argues that the provision is an impermissible burden on his First Amendment rights of expression and association and must be subject to strict scrutiny. The Commission contends that any infringement on the First Amendment is incidental, and therefore the United States Supreme Court should eschew strict scrutiny in favor of a lower standard of review. The Supreme Court of Nevada applied strict scrutiny and struck down the provision as unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court’s decision could affect the level of scrutiny at which recusal provisions are reviewed nationwide and the freedom of states to establish independent legislator voting restrictions.
Whether the First Amendment subjects state restrictions on voting by elected officials to (i) strict scrutiny, as held by the Nevada Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit, (ii) the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), for government-employee speech, as held by the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits, or (iii) rational-basis review, as held by the Seventh and Eighth Circuits.
In 1999, Respondent Michael Carrigan was elected to the Sparks City Council and has since been re-elected twice. See Carrigan v.
The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.
• New York Times, Adam Liptak: Justices to Hear Case on Recusal Laws (Jan. 7, 2011)
• First Amendment Center, David L. Hudson, Jr.: Garcetti Would Be Unwelcome Element in Nevada Case (Jan. 11, 2011)
Does the deference to a trial judge’s findings, embodied in the habeas corpus statute, extend to situations where the fact finder did not directly observe an incident of allegedly inappropriate conduct by a potential juror but merely accepted the prosecutor’s account of events? Can the Federal court consider such actions by the state court trial judge as unreasonable even where the trial judge’s ultimate finding nevertheless falls within the acceptable range of what a rational court could have found given the evidence presented before it?
The Ninth Circuit recently granted criminal defendant Steven Martell Collins’ habeas corpus petition on the grounds that the prosecution unconstitutionally used a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror on account of her race. Although the prosecutor convinced the trial judge that the dismissal was not racially motivated and was therefore acceptable, the Ninth Circuit found the trial judge’s decision to be unreasonable despite the fact that the decision was affirmed on numerous occasions throughout the state court system and at the Federal District Court. The Ninth Circuit held that, despite the statutory deference granted to the original fact-finder by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, such deference was inappropriate here. The Supreme Court will likely interpret § 2254 to determine whether the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority when it held that the trial judge was unreasonable in accepting the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for dismissing the juror.
Does 28 U.S.C. § 2254 allow a federal habeas corpus court to reject the presumption of correctness for state fact finding, and condemn a state-court adjudication as an unreasonable determination of the facts, where a rational fact finder could have determined the facts as did the state court?
The below facts are all derived from the amended opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Collins v. Rice, 365 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004). During the process of jury selection for Collins’s trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove two African American women from the jury. Id. at 674.
Should the Federal Circuit review the construction of patent claims de novo or for clear error?
The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claims construction in a patent infringement case de novo and reversed that court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact whether the interpretation of patent claim construction involves questions of law. Sandoz and amici argue that claim construction involves questions of law, and to review interpretations deferentially would cause interpretive contradictions between district courts. However, Teva and amici argue that de novo review would undermine the district courts and lead to over-litigation of issues.
Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, and other related companies (collectively, “Teva”), developed and obtained a patent for Copaxone, a drug used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al., v. Sandoz Inc., 876 F. Supp.
The authors would like to thank Professor Oskar Liivak for his insights into this case.
On February 8, 2010, a magistrate judge held a hearing with the defendant, Anthony Davila, and his attorney. At the hearing, the judge encouraged Davila to plead guilty, and on May 11, 2010, Davila pled guilty to the charges. On appeal, Davila successfully argued that the judge’s encouragement constituted a violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 11(c)(1), which generally prohibits the judge from participating in plea-bargaining. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether any judicial participation in plea-bargaining, as opposed to “prejudicial” participation, mandates automatic reversal of a conviction. The United States argues that FRCP 11(h) requires the appellate court to review Rule 11 errors under the harmless error standard, while Davila counters that an 11(c)(1) error requires automatic reversal. Furthermore, the United States sees many 11(c)(1) violations as technical and harmless, while Davila views such violations as universally prejudicial, making the government’s role effectively redundant. Both Davila and the United States argue that a ruling for the other party will undermine the finality of guilty convictions secured by plea bargains.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendant's guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced the defendant.
Does a judge’s participation in plea negotiations automatically overturn the defendant’s guilty plea, or does it only overturn the plea if the judge’s participation actually harmed the defendant?
Whether, under the First Amendment, a state legislature may bar local governments from making payroll deductions to support political activities.
In 2003, the Idaho state legislature passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which prevents state political subdivisions from making payroll deductions for political activities. The Pocatello Education Association and other organizations challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing that it impermissibly burdens free speech. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the state does not exercise sufficient control of local governments to allow it to regulate speech through its systems. It therefore found the statute unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a state exercises sufficient control over local governments to allow it to regulate speech through their systems. This decision will impact whether the Court evaluates state government regulations of local governments using strict scrutiny or a “reasonableness” standard of review.
Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a state legislature from removing the authority of state political subdivisions to make payroll deductions for political activities under a statute that is concededly valid as applied to state government employers?
In 2003, the Idaho state legislature enacted the Voluntary Contributions Act (“VCA”). See Pocatello Educ. Ass'n v. Heideman, 504 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir.
· Legal Information Institute, Wex: First Amendment
· First Amendment Online (hosted by the University of Minnesota Law School)
