Petitioner, V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED, Petitioner, v. SAS INSTITUTE, INC., Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— WAYNE F. DENNISON JEFFREY A. LAMKEN REBECCA M. LECAROZ Counsel of Record BROWN RUDNICK LLP ERIC R. NITZ One Financial Center MOLOLAMKEN LLP Boston, MA 02111 The Watergate, Suite 660 (617) 856-8200 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 JUSTIN M. ELLIS (202) 556-2000 W. ALEX HARRIS [email protected] MOLOLAMKEN LLP 430 Park Ave. JORDAN A. RICE New York, NY 10022 MOLOLAMKEN LLP (212) 607-8160 300 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 450-6700 Counsel for Petitioner WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether federal or state law governs the respect that must be accorded to the judgment of a foreign court in diversity cases. 2. Whether a district court’s decision on the merits of a claim becomes moot, and must be vacated, if the court of appeals determines that the plaintiff has not proven entitlement to the only remaining relief sought in connection with that claim. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW All parties to the proceedings below are named in the caption. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, World Program- ming Limited states that it has no parent corporation. World Programming Limited further states that no pub- licly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions Below ............................................................. 1 Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................... 1 Constitutional and Treaty Provisions Involved ......................................................................... 2 Preliminary Statement ............................................... 2 Statement ...................................................................... 4 I. Legal Framework ............................................ 4 A. Federal Recognition Principles ............... 4 B. State Authorities on the Preclusive Effect of Foreign Judgments .................. 6 C. The Berne Convention’s National- Treatment Principle .................................. 6 II. Proceedings Below .......................................... 7 A. The Initial U.K. Lawsuit and Resulting Judgment Against SAS Institute ...................................................... 8 B. Proceedings Before the District Court ........................................................... 10 C. Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals........................................................ 11 Reasons for Granting the Petition ............................ 13 I. Review Is Warranted To Resolve Whether Federal Comity Principles Govern the Respect Accorded to Foreign Judgments ........................................................ 13 A. The Courts of Appeals Are Divided ........ 14 B. The Issue Is Important ............................ 20 (v) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page C. This Case Illustrates the Unacceptable Risks Created by the Majority View ............................................ 24 II. The Court of Appeals’ Mootness Ruling Warrants Review as Well ............................... 27 A. Entitlement to Relief Concerns the Merits, Not Mootness ............................... 28 B. The Fourth Circuit’s Decision Conflates Mootness with the Merits ....... 30 C. The Fourth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts with the Decisions of Other Circuits ............................................ 31 D. The Issue Is Important and Recurring .................................................... 32 Conclusion ..................................................................... 33 Appendix A – Opinion of the Court of Appeals (Oct. 24, 2017) .......................................................... 1a Appendix B – Summary Judgment Order of the District Court (Sept. 29, 2014) ....................... 32a Appendix C – Order Modifying Summary Judgment Order of the District Court (July 21, 2015) .......................................................... 81a Appendix D – Order of the Court of Appeals (Nov. 21, 2017) ....................................................... 102a Appendix E – Relevant Constitutional, Treaty, and Statutory Provisions...................................... 104a Appendix F – Approved Judgement of the U.K. High Court of Justice (Jan. 25, 2013) ................ 117a Appendix G – Approved Judgment of the U.K. Court of Appeal (Nov. 21, 2013) ......................... 163a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay, 223 U.S. 185 (1912) ............................................. 5 Already LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) ............................................... 28 Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003) ....................................... 21, 22 Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) ............................................. 21 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .................. 26 Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) ............................................. 4 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) ....................................... 21, 22 Banque Libanaise Pour Le Commerce v. Khreich, 915 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1990) ........... 18 Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) ............................ 26 Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) ............................................. 30 BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ............................................. 25 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ........................ 26 Bowers v. Baystate Techs., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................... 27 Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (1986) ......... 25 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Bueltel v. Lumber Mut. Ins. Co., 518 S.E.2d 205 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) ................ 12 Burnham v. Webster, 4 F. Cas. 781 (1846) ............................................ 20 Cantrade Privatbank AG Zurich v. Bangkok Pub. Co., 681 N.Y.S.2d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) ......................................... 16 Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993) ......................................... 32, 33 Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) ..................................... passim Chevron Corp. v. Donzinger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016) ................................. 32 Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) ............................................. 21 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ............................................. 33 Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ....................................... 21, 25 De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 714 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ......................... 5, 15 Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Defense Ctr., 568 U.S. 597 (2013) ............................................. 29 Derr v. Swarek, 766 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014) ........................ 15, 16 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............................................. 17 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) .................................... 14, 18, 22 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Evans Cabinet Corp. v. Kitchen Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2010) ..................... 20 Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) ......................... 32 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012) ................................... 7, 17, 24 Gross v. German Found. Indus. Initiative, 456 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2006) ............ 19 Guinness PLC v. Ward, 955 F.2d 875 (4th Cir. 1992) ......................... 15, 18 Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) ............................................. 25 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979) ..................................................... 18 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) ................................... passim Jaffe v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., 294 F.3d 584 (4th Cir. 2012) ......................... 15, 17 Kelly v. First Astri Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 462 (1999) ............................... 16 Case C-7/98, Krombach v. Bamberski, 2000 E.C.R. I-01935 ........................................... 5 Maxwell Schuman & Co. v. Edwards, 663 S.E.2d 329 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) ................ 16 Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................. 15 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) ............................................. 29 Nat’l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999) ................................ 25 Paramount Aviation Corp. v. Agusta, 178 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 1999) ............................... 20 Phillips USA, Inc. v. Allflex USA, Inc., 77 F.3d 354 (10th Cir. 1996) .............................. 14 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ............................................. 29 Saskatchewan Mut. Ins. Co. v. CE Design, Ltd., 865 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 15 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964) ............................................. 26 Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft