Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (11-982)

argument 11-982

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in the Already v. Nike case?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first today in case eleven nine eighty two already L C D B A Yums versus Nike. Mr Dabney.

Mr. Dabney 0:11

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Article three question in this case turns on resolution of two issues. First, Whether loss of freedom to operate on the part of a direct competitor qualifies as Article three injury in fact. And second What party bears the burden of proof of facts? that are contended by it to render a claim moot. The counterclaim in this case seeks to extinguish a source of cost, risk, and official restraint. on what footwear products the petitioner can and cannot legally sell. These are classic forms of injury, in fact. On the burden of proof point. The proponent of a factual contention always bears the burden of proving this, and this is especially true when the question arises in the context of a claim that a voluntary act has allegedly ousted a federal court of jurisdiction.

Mr. Dabney 1:06

Mutinous doctrine protects a party seeking relief from the kind of evasive maneuvering that's happened in this case.

Unknown 1:15

But to write an a an opinion indicating that there's a chill here because distributors and retailers will see that there's been this uh suit uh against uh your client and they will be reluctant to distribute. W would there would I just make that up or is there something I can read to find out? find that out

Mr. Dabney 1:37

or injury in fact is a question of fact and injury in fact is uh based on evidence.

Unknown 1:44

Well the the evidence here was that they did uh in uh need investors and investors were reluctant. That's

Mr. Dabney 1:52

correct.

Unknown 1:52

It wasn't specific evidence. Was any anything besides that?

Mr. Dabney 1:57

There are three forms of injury in this case. The first is that the petitioner's cost of operation is increased. Because the disputed claim was not expunged Uh when the petitioner designs and sells new products, it has to go through an incredibly costly process to determine whether or not its next line of shoes might give rise to a plausible condition. It certainly is. The petitioner says through its president on page one hundred and seventy three of the Joint Appendix that he is engaged in new development of new shoe lines which by definition are outside the scope of the Covenant, not too much. Um that specific statement is not in the record.

Unknown 2:39

I mean it it makes sense, but I I I I'm a little reluctant to take judicial notice of the shoe business. I mean

Mr. Dabney 2:47

Your Honor, uh I'm glad you brought that up because under the mootness doctrine, the burden of proof on that and every other fact relevant to mootness fell on the respondents. Under this court's precedence, the respondent in this case, in order to oust the district court of jurisdiction, had to show two things to a high degree of probability. The first thing the prop the respondent had to show is that it was absolutely clear that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to

Stephen G. Breyer 3:14

right. That's the standard. And so you said that uh I mean I feel perhaps more calmly about this might feel as warranted. But the the the the the uh uh Uh question is uh is there anything here that you say you said by definition we're going to produce some new shoes Which new shoes are not uh Uh don't do not have the appearance of any current and or previous footwear product designs and any colorable imitations thereof. So I would like you to refer me to the record where your president of your client or somebody else says we are intending to produce some new shoes that fall outside that definition. And of course I will look at that because your opponent says we can find no reasonable likelihood that they are going to produce anything or they have any present intent.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:12

of showing of producing something that falls outside that definition. But now you just said, oh no, we're definitely going to, so just refer me to those pages in the record that chose that, because of course you win if that's true.

Mr. Dabney 4:24

Page one hundred seventy three A of the record of the joint appendix states that the petitioner is intending is is regularly engaged in the design of new footwear.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:32

Yes, but that isn't the point.