Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (12-873)

argument 12-873

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 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 Lexmark v. Static Control?

John G. Roberts, Jr. 0:02

We'll hear argument next this morning in case twelve eight seventy-three, Lexmark International versus static control components. Mr. Roy.

Daniel P. Lloyd 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, it may please the court. The standing trust for antitrust adopted. by this court thirty years ago in AGC. is the appropriate test to give effect to Congress's intent. Under the Lanamac. And this is for three reasons. First, the plain text of the Lanham Act at Section forty five states that the intent of that act is to protect commercial actors against unfair competition. Competition generally is the focus of both antitrust statutes. And the landmag. and any test that this court adopts should be tied to that statutory intent section. Second. The history and the common law of both the antitrust statutes and the Lanham Act are similar. In fact, in the Lanimac context, the common law was more specific

Daniel P. Lloyd 0:59

and more direct than it was under the antitrust statutes. And finally.

How does the Lanham Act’s text define the statute’s purpose?

Daniel P. Lloyd 1:04

Each of the five eighty. The The Lanham Act provides some causes of action. That are beyond the common law. We think the prudential standing considerations that were in place at common law or at least uh should guide the court in determining what Congress intended to do by that's

John G. Roberts, Jr. 1:28

It'd be a lot stronger if if you said the Lenham Act r merely as the Sherman Act was supposed to have done, merely adopted the common law. The Atlantic doesn't merely adopt the common law, it goes well beyond

Daniel P. Lloyd 1:42

I think there are two components to the common law and and we'll talk talk now about the most general component and that are uh considerations of proximate cause and foreseeability that were in place when the uh Sherman and Clayton acts were enacted. Those are general propositions that apply to to any uh at least federal statutory cause of action and would also apply then uh to the Lanham Act. And the AGC factors address those prudential standing requirements by specifically uh asking about approximate cause factors. The very first question that AGC asked is is this the type of injury Congress intended to redress? Um it's a logical question and should be act asked appropriately in inter any federal statutory cause of action.

Elena Kagan 2:30

Tell me why the answer to that question doesn't end this case here. You're disparaging the goods of a person. They're saying that it's illegal. to use that person's products. It seems to me that's the essence of the Latin Act as it's now written.

Daniel P. Lloyd 2:54

Two points. Uh first we can talk about the the alleged false advertisements in this case. The first Alleged false advertisement about Lex Mor. was to Lexmark's customers saying that you're bound by this single use restriction on our cartridges. That advertisement does not mention static control at all. The second alleged false

John G. Roberts, Jr. 3:14

doesn't mention what at all? Doesn't

Daniel P. Lloyd 3:15

it does not mention static control at all the respondent? The second alleged misrepresentation were were letters written to remanufacturers. saying to the remanufacturers, if you remanufacture, re manufacture our cartridges, you will violate our rights, including if you use static controls products to do it. Beyond that though, the question is of target is not a test, it's a conclusion. And in AGC, this court in the antitrust context rejected a test for antitrust standing called the target area test. And Conti Brothers, the Third Circuit decision that first adopted the AGC test in the Lanham Act. Um also uh um did not adopt a target area test. And so uh for for that reason we think the factors that AGC lays out

Daniel P. Lloyd 4:05

are the appropriate factors to determine Um and I trust standing in any given

Samuel A. Alito 4:10

case.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:11

Samuel A. Alito 4:11

I assume you would agree that the manufacturer of the cartridges that compete with LexMark would have standing here.

Daniel P. Lloyd 4:19

And in fact in this case they did have standing and one of the remanufacturers asserted a false advertising claim against Lexmark related to the pre bake program.

Samuel A. Alito 4:27

But it's not a very big step from the manufacturer of the cartridge that com competes to the manufacturer of the chip, which is really the essential component of or an essential component of the cartridge that competes.