BNSF Railway Co. v Tyrell

BNSF sought review of the Montana Supreme Court decision that it was subject to general personal jurisdiction under 46 USC 56. The Court, with one justice dissenting in part, reversed and remanded. It held under Court precedent, 56 sets venue for suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and grants concurrent jurisdiction to state courts and that neither of these provisions alter the rules on personal jurisdiction. The majority held that while BNSF conducts enough business in Montana to be subject to specific jurisdiction over suits arising from activity in the state, the activity is insufficient to grant general jurisdiction as BNSF is not incorporated in Montana nor is its main place of business in Montana. As all the acts alleged to make BNSF liable occurred outside Montana, the judgment was reversed. Sotomayor dissented in part arguing that the new rule limiting general jurisdiction to place of incorporation or principal place of business is wrong and the majority should have at least remand the case to determine if this is an exceptional case under the rule.

Esquival-Quitana v Sessions

Esquival-Quitana sought review of the 6th Circuit decision affirming his deportation based on a California statutory rape conviction arguing his conviction was not for sexual abuse of a minor for immigration purposes. The Court, with Gorsuch not participating, reversed. It held that under the categorical approach, the California conviction was not sexual abuse of a minor as California law allows conviction for sex with a minor the day before their 18th birthday while the generic crime requires the victim be 16 or under based on the definition of the age of consent in 1996, federal law defining 16 as the age of consent in the only part of the United States Code to do so, the laws of 31 sates set 16 as the age of consent as of 1996.

Sandoz, Inc. v Amgen, Inc.

Sandoz sought review of the Federal Circuit decision that it could not provide a mandatory notice of commercial marketing of a biosimilar drug until the Food and Drug Administration licensed the biosimilar and Amgen conditionally sought review of the Federal Circuit decision holding that certain disclosure requirements cannot be enforced through injunction. The Court, with Breyer adding a concurrence, reversed in part on the injunction issue and reversed on the notice timing issue. As to the injunction issue, the Court held that the sole remedy for failure to disclose an application to market a biosimilar and the manufacturing information about the biosimilar authorized by 35 USC 262(l)(9)(C) is to allow the original manufacturer of the biologic based drug to immediately bring suit for declaratory judgment and this conclusion is reinforced by Congress’ decision to allow injunctions to enforce confidentiality of the disclosures but not to allow injunctive relief when disclosures are not made. It held that injunctive relief may be available under state law here as the failure to disclose does not constitute patent infringement and thus there is no underlying federal violation and the case was remanded for the Federal Circuit to determine if a state remedy is available here and if so whether such remedy is be preempted. As to the notice issue, the Court held that 35 USC 262(l)(8)(A) sets the a date to disclose, but, the limitations on marketing to licensed biosimilar drugs do not bar disclosure before licensing and the Federal Circuit erred in holding otherwise. Breyer added a concurrence noting the FDA may change its views on these provisions and the Court would need to revisit the issues of that happens.