The Supreme Court, beginning to fill out the remainder of its decision docket for this Term, granted review Friday afternoon of eight new cases — including a major dispute on the right of the television industry to stop the Internet streaming of its copyrighted programs by a firm that does so without permission and without paying anything.
That case is ABC, Inc., v. Aereo, Inc. (docket 13-461). Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part in that order.
The Court took on another case in the long-running dispute over Argentina’s default on its government debt. The new case (Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 12-842) is a test of the right of creditors holding some of that debt to seek financial data about the Argentine government’s assets worldwide, not just in the United States.
The new cases probably will be argued in April — the last sitting of the Term.
Below the jump are summaries of the other six cases granted.
POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola (12-761) — whether a private individual or company has a right to file a federal court lawsuit to challenge a food or beverage label as misleading or false under the Lanham Act. Justices Alito and Stephen G. Breyer took no part. (Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., plays a role for the petitioner in the case.)
Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies (12-786) — when can a company be found to have induced someone else to infringe on a patent, when neither one has directly infringed on patent rights? (Justice Alito took no part.)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (13-193) — right to bring a lawsuit to challenge a state law that forbids false statements about a candidate during an election campaign, when the speaker insists any statements are truthful. The case involves comments on a congressional candidate’s vote in favor of the new federal health care law.
United States v. Clarke (13-301) — when must a federal court hold a hearing to weigh whether the Internal Revenue Service acted improperly in demanding tax data by issuing a summons to a taxpayer.
CTS Corporation v. Waldberger (13-339) — preemption by the federal Superfund Law on clean-up of environmental wastes of a state law limiting the time to seek remedies.
Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments (13-369) — scope of the Patent Act requirement that invention claims must be clear and distinct.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY