COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. v. OMEGA, S. A.
No. 08-1423.
Argued November 8, 2010
Decided December 13, 2010
Roy T. Englert, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Ariel N. Lavinbuk, Norman H. Levine, and Aaron J. Moss.
Aaron M. Panner argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Michael K. Kellogg and Matthew C. Wagner.
Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Katyal, Assistant Attorney General West, and Melissa Arbus Sherry.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Library Association et al. by Jonathan Band; for eBay, Inc., et al. by David B. Salmons and Mary T. Huser; for the Entertainment Merchants Association et al. by John T. Mitchell and Kathleen Hartnett; for Intel Corp. by Theodore B. Olson, Matthew D. McGill, and Tina M. Chappell; for Public Citizen by Gregory A. Beck, Adina H. Rosenbaum, and Allison M. Zieve; for Public Knowledge et al. by Gigi B. Sohn; and for the Retail Industry Leaders Association et al. by Seth D. Greenstein.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bar Association by Stephen N. Zack and Thomas C. Goldstein; for the American Watch Association by Ronald G. Dove, Jr.; for the Association of American Publishers by Charles S. Sims and Jon A. Baumgarten; for the Business Software Alliance by Andrew J. Pincus; for FUJIFILM Corp. et al. by Lawrence Rosenthal; for the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., et al. by Seth P. Waxman, Randolph D. Moss, Catherine M. A. Carroll, and Jennifer L. Pariser; and for the Software & Information Industry Association by Scott E. Bain.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Intellectual Property Law Association by Patrick J. Coyne; and for the Intellectual Property Owners Association by George L. Graff, Kevin Rhodes, Victoria A Cun-diff, Rebecca K. Myers, and Laura K. Isenberg.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.