Monsanto Co. v. Durnell

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-889.html] Argued on Apr 29 2026. For petitioners: Charles B. Klein, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz. Question Presented: Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act "[t]o facilitate the approval of generic drugs as soon as patents allow." Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S , 566 U.S. 399, 405 (2012). Recognizing that many drugs are approved for both patented and unpatented uses, Congress sought to ensure "that one patented use will not foreclose marketing a generic drug for other unpatented ones." Id . at 415. The statutory mechanism is a "skinny label": Generic drugmakers "carve out" patented uses from their labels, leaving only instructions to use generic drugs for their unpatented uses. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii). Congress designed this carve-out mechanism to encourage competition and to protect generic drugmakers from allegations that marketing a generic drug for an unpatented use "actively induces infringement." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). After all, active inducement requires "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"-there is no "liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use." Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 & n.11 (2005). The questions presented are: 1. When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use? 2. Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use? Oral Argument Links: * SCOTUS Oral Argument Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-889] * Transcript PDF [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-889_5ifl.pdf] Docket Links: * SCOTUS Docket Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-889.html] * Question Presented [https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00889qp.pdf] * Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/342837/20250214130639007_Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20-%20Hikma%20v%20Amarin.pdf] * Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/358860/20250515112618670_24-889%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf] * Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/362081/20250602120413875_Reply%20to%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%2024-889.pdf] * Cert. Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/386573/20251205145014514_24-889%20--%20Hikma%20Pharmaceuticals%20v.%20Amarin%20Pharma.pdf] * Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/396643/20260218155808148_Brief%20for%20Petitioners%2024-889.pdf] * Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/397318/20260225162016293_24-889_Hikma_Merits_Amicus.pdf] * Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/390238/20251223120039390_24-889%20Supplemental%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf] * Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/404276/20260413134709097_Hikma%20v%20Amarin%20Petitioners%20Reply%20Brief%20No.%2024-889.pdf] Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. KLEIN (00:11:20) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MALCOLM L. STEWART (00:28:12) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL R. HUSTON (00:57:08) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. KLEIN Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: * Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. * Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. * Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y [https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y]

Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe

Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe, No. 25-1083 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1083.html] Argued on Apr 29 2026. For petitioners: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents in 25-1083: Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondents in 25-1084: Geoffrey M. Pipoly, Chicago, Ill. VIDED. Oral Argument Links: * SCOTUS Oral Argument Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/25-1083] * Transcript PDF [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-1083_k5fm.pdf] Docket Links: * SCOTUS Docket Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1083.html] * Question Presented [https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-01083qp.pdf] * Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/404319/20260413153027211_25-1083%20Brief.pdf] * Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/400239/20260306154000492_Noem%20v.%20Doe%20Stay%20Reply%20final.pdf] * Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/403273/20260330193346837_25-1083tsUnitedStates.pdf] * Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/404319/20260413153027211_25-1083%20Brief.pdf] * Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/404848/20260420134959762_25-1083rbUnitedStates.pdf] Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. D. JOHN SAUER (00:44:09) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM (01:24:25) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (01:43:11) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. D. JOHN SAUER Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: * Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. * Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. * Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y [https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y]

Cisco Systems v. Doe I

Cisco Systems v. Doe I, No. 24-856 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html] Argued on Apr 28 2026. For petitioners: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Paul L. Hoffman, Hermosa Beach, Cal. Question Presented: 1. Whether the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. 2. Whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea. 3. Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judicially- implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. Oral Argument Links: * SCOTUS Oral Argument Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-856] * Transcript PDF [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-856_0pm1.pdf] Docket Links: * SCOTUS Docket Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html] * Question Presented [https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00856qp.pdf] * Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/342121/20250206141602824_2025.01.31%20-%20Cisco%20Cert%20Pet.pdf] * Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/356086/20250421115806414_24-856%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf] * Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/358159/20250505165443468_No.%2024-856%20-%20Cisco%20reply%20brief.pdf] * Cert. Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/386875/20251209154334578_24-856_Cisco-CVSG.pdf] * Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/396570/20260218115211423_24-856%20-%20Cisco%20Br%20for%20Petrs.pdf] * Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/397322/20260225165613681_24-856tsacUnitedStates.pdf] * Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/390133/20251222150308366_24-856%20Supplemental%20Brief.pdf] * Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/404489/20260415094601358_Cisco%20reply%20brief%20for%20petitioners%20-%2024-856.pdf] Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM (00:37:14) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CURTIS E. GANNON (01:17:50) ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL L. HOFFMAN (01:53:58) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: * Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. * Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. * Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y [https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y]

Chatrie v. United States

Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html] Argued on Apr 27 2026. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. Question Presented: This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought - without seeking an additional warrant - information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then - again without seeking an additional warrant-law enforcement requested de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. 2. Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence warrant. Oral Argument Links: * SCOTUS Oral Argument Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/25-112] * Transcript PDF [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-112_o758.pdf] Docket Links: * SCOTUS Docket Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html] * Question Presented [https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-00112qp.pdf] * Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/368199/20250728142157250_USSC%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf] * Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/385692/20251124174425288_Chatrie_Opp_11.24.pdf] * Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/386716/20251208144114311_25-112%20Reply%20Brief.pdf] * Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/397074/20260223160717593_25-112%20-%20Opening%20Brief.pdf] * Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/401871/20260325184404433_25-112bsUnitedStates.pdf] * Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/404764/20260417152749041_Reply%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner%20PDFA.pdf] Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY (00:57:11) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC J. FEIGIN (01:55:14) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: * Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. * Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. * Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y [https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y]

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1068.html] Argued on Apr 27 2026. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.; and Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Ashley C. Keller, Chicago, Ill. Question Presented: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under" FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's permission. Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not. The question presented is: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. Oral Argument Links: * SCOTUS Oral Argument Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1068] * Transcript PDF [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1068_7lh8.pdf] Docket Links: * SCOTUS Docket Page [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1068.html] * Question Presented [https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-01068qp.pdf] * Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/354805/20250404152744625_No.%20___%20Petition.pdf] * Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/362678/20250609152753839_Durnell%20BIO%20-%20App.pdf] * Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/363286/20250616135059403_2025-6-16%20Final%20Monsanto%20Durnell%20cert%20reply.pdf] * Cert. Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/386073/20251201170732560_24-1068%20--%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell.pdf] * Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/397048/20260223143047764_24-1068%20Final%20Monsanto%20Co.%20v%20Durnell%20merits%20opening%20brief.pdf] * Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/403432/20260401142837859_VFW%20Amicus%20Brief_Monsanto%20v%20Durnell_Final.pdf] * Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/387565/20251216100549526_suppl.%20brief%20-%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell%20-%20No.%2024-1068.pdf] * Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/404756/20260417143840724_1.%202026-04-17%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell%20Reply%20Final.pdf] Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL D. CLEMENT (00:36:40) ORAL ARGUMENT OF SARAH M. HARRIS (00:51:42) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ASHLEY C. KELLER Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: * Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. * Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. * Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y [https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y]