[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] for two new cases next term, and noted probable jurisdiction to another. In Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the Court has been asked to determine whether the sale of a single component of a multiple part invention from the United States constitutes a patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) [text], making the manufacturer liable for all claims worldwide. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] previously held [opinion] that such sales do constitute an infringement under the statute. In particular, the court stated that a company need not seek to influence or persuade another company to create an infringement, but merely enable a violation under § 271(f)(1).

In Beckles v. United States, the Court has been asked to address whether its ruling in Johnson v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounders], where the Court held imposing an enhanced sentence based upon the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [materials] was unconstitutional under a due process analysis, applies retroactively to collateral cases challenging enhanced sentences under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) [text, PDF] defining a “crime of violence.” The appeal also asks whether Johnson‘s due process analysis applies to the residual clause of the USSG, allowing for collateral review and whether possessing a sawed-off shotgun is a “crime of violence” after Johnson. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] had previously held that “Johnson says and decided nothing about career-offender enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines or about the Guidelines commentary underlying Beckles’ status as a career-offender,” and thus affirmed Beckles’ enhanced sentence.

Finally, in McCrory v. Harris [SCOTUSblog backgrounder], the court noted probable jurisdiction to determine whether actions taken by North Carolina relied too much on race when they redrew the state’s congressional districts. North Carolina, through its governor, Patrick McCrory [official website], is challenging the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina’s [official website] decision, declaring [decision, PDF] several of the districts to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) [text]. Among the potential issues are whether the court erred in requiring the state to show that make-up of “Congressional District 1 was ‘actually necessary’ under the VRA instead of simply showing it had ‘good reasons’ to believe” the redistricting would prevent future vote dilution claims and whether the court should not removed the plaintiff’s burden to show the districts were created for “race rather than politics.”