The stakes were high for the hours-long debate that took place earlier this week, where interruptions, allegations of question dodging and even threats to jail Democrats transpired.
I’m not talking about the Oct. 9 presidential debate though.
Nope. This all went down at U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments this “week.” With the court observing Columbus Day and Yom Kippur, the court heard all three of its arguments for the week on one day.
And that seemed to make some of the justices a little grumpy, such that the arguments seemed more like the heated presidential debates rather than proceedings in a hallowed institution.
Exhibit one: Interruptions.
During arguments in No. 15-777 Samsung Electronics v. Apple, the two tech giants went toe-to-toe over how much Samsung has to pay Apple for infringing its “design patents”—patents that protect a product’s ornamental features.
Patent law says that an infringer should be liable for the “total profit” from the “article of manufacture.”
The lower courts said the article of manufacture equals the entire phone, and awarded Apple all of Samsung’s $399 million profit from the sale of the infringing phones.
Samsung argues that the article of manufacture is much narrower.
One lawyer was attempting to answer a question from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about how a jury would figure out damages under that narrower rule, when Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped in.
Ginsburg was having none of it.
“May he complete the answer to my question?” Ginsburg interjected.
Exhibit two: Complaining about the questions.
Staying with Samsung v. Apple, the justices and advocates were discussing the case through a hypothetical involving the VW Bug. The iconic car’s distinctive style makes it an “easy” case for determining that a big damages award would be appropriate for design patent infringement, one lawyer suggested.
But not everyone thought so.
“This hypothetical is not helpful to me, because I can't get over the thought that nobody buys a car, even a Beetle, just because they like the way it looks,” Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said.
The defendant here was convicted of a misdemeanor but he wants his conviction thrown out because he says one of the jurors made racist comments during deliberations.
Bloomberg BNA’s Nick Datlowe tells us that jury deliberations are usually a “black box,” with many jurisdictions prohibiting the introduction of juror testimony to challenge the conviction.
The justices considered, however, whether “racism was a sufficient reason to crack” the box open, Nick says.
All seemed to agree that the juror’s conduct here was deplorable, but some justices wondered if allowing an exception here would break the box wide open.
Would derogatory comments about a defendant’s religion, gender or sexual orientation also be sufficient to crack open the box, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wanted to know.
When the defendant’s lawyer repeatedly said that the court could just deal with that later, Alito accused him of dodging the question.
“You’re not being very helpful to the court in your answers,” Alito said. “Now, how would you distinguish religion from race if we were to reach an opposite conclusion in the religious case?”
Exhibit four: Threatening to throw democrats in jail.
Alito continued to press the defendant’s lawyer on the limits of the proposed exception.
If “it came out the jurors said this person is a Democrat, send him to jail, that would be a different result?” Alito asked. “You will not tell us whether the rule would apply” in that situation.
Read more about how this played out here.
The justices seemed to calm down after they broke for lunch.
That’s all for the October sitting. The court will resume arguments Oct. 31.
Until then, stay on top of the latest Supreme Court developments with a free trial to United States Law Week.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)