Document: 510 U.S. 27 IZUMI SEIMITSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHAv.U. S. PHILIPS CORP. et al. No. 92-1123. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 12, 1993. Decided November 30, Petitioner Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha was a party at the first trial in an action brought against it and respondent Windmere Corporation by U. Philips Corporation, but not to second trial, which prevailed. While judgments from were on appeal, respondents reached settlement filed joint motion vacate District Court's judgments. Izumi's intervene appeal for purposes opposing vacatur denied Appeals ground that action, court went find appropriate. Held: The writ certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. single question presented this review whether courts appeals should routinely district final parties' request when cases are settled appeal. However, order reach question, would have address raised until its brief merits: improperly intervene. Since latter neither petition nor fairly included presented, required Rule 14.1, can be considered only if deems exceptional case. case bears scant resemblance those has made exceptions Rule's provisions, unlikely any new principle law enunciated undertaken. Moreover, faithful application helps ensure tempted engage ill-considered decisions relatively factbound issues actually It also informs seeking strongly disapproves practice smuggling additional questions into after Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 971 F. 2d 728. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT Herbert H. Mintz argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Robert D. Litowitz, Jean Burke Fordis, David Forman, William L. Androlia. Garrard R. Beeney respondents. E. Willis, John Hardiman, Sheldon Karon, Paul M. Dodyk. Thomas G. Hungar States amicus curiae urging affirmance. Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney Schiffer, Deputy Kneedler, Leonard Schaitman, P. Schnitker.* PER CURIAM. 1 In merits case, we one presented. Because will consider most cases, because conclude such dismiss 2 named defendant, along with Southern Florida claiming defendants had infringed Philips' patent rights engaged unfair trade competition. counterclaimed antitrust violations. At judgment entered jury verdict infringement claim, appealed. prevailed Windmere's counterclaim, ordered competition claim. On interlocutory Federal Circuit reversed counterclaim remanded trial. Corp. v. Corp., 861 F.2d 695 (CA Fed. 1988), cert. denied, 490 1068 (1989). took no further part litigation. 3 A found favor both claim more than $89 million. appealed Circuit. Before decided however, wherein agreed pay $57 jointly judgments, although conditioned granting motion. After their vacate, petitioner sought vacatur. 4 728, 730-731 1992). reasoned financial support litigation indemnitor sufficient confer status. concluded interest preserving collateral estoppel insufficient provide standing.1 Ibid. proceeded that, all parties Id., 731. 5 Title 28 C. § 1254(1) provides, relevant part: "Cases may reviewed . 6 "(1) [B]y granted upon civil or criminal before rendition decree." (Emphasis added.) 7 petitioner's intervention, particular One who been right ruling, Automobile Workers Scofield, 382 205, 208-209 (1965), certiorari. our review: "Should Courts while appeal?" divided Appeals,2 507 907 (1993). merits, added following list presented: "Whether permitted oppose Respondents' judgment." 8 This 14.1(a) "The statement [in certiorari] deemed comprise every subsidiary therein. Only set forth petition, therein, Court."3 Unless denial "fairly included" relating request, 14.1 prevent us reaching it. 9 seems clear challenge Circuit's "subsidiary" contrary, akin regarding party's standing,4 described "threshold inquiry" "`in way depends merits'" Whitmore Arkansas, 495 149, 155 (1990) (quoting Warth Seldin, 422 490, 500 (1975)). 10 We believe review.5 merely "complementary" "related" "`fairly therein.'" Yee Escondido, 503 519, 537 (1992). Thus, Yee, ordinance effected physical taking did include related regulatory taking. Whether leave below quite distinct, analytically factually, where so stipulated. even less complementary another Yee. 11 intervention being "Rule accordingly creates heavy presumption consideration" issue. 14.1(a), course, prudential; "does limit power decide important parties." Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University Ill. Foundation, 402 313, 320, n. (1971). prudential rule, precatory admonition. As stated numerous occasions, disregard "`only cases.'" supra, 535 Stone Powell, 428 465, 481, 15 (1976)); see Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 443, 38 (1984) ("Absent unusual circumstances, chary considering petitions certiorari").6 12 overruled prior though requested See, e. g., Blonder-Tongue, 319-321. nonconstitutional grounds constitutional question. Boynton Virginia, 364 454, 457 (1960); Neese Co., 350 77, 78 (1955). must notice possible absence jurisdiction obligated do issue party. Lake Country Estates, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 391, 398 (1979); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Wetzel, 424 737, 740 (1976). And may, pursuant 24.1(a), "consider plain error among evident record otherwise within [our] decide." Wood Georgia, 450 261, 265, (1981); generally Stern, Gressman, & Shapiro, Practice 6.26 (6th ed. 1986) (discussing exceptions). 13 present cited above provisions 14.1. decision difficult one, always some extent bound up facts Should undertake Appeals' enunciated, said "[t]o use resources efficiently" highlighting "that enable resolve particularly questions." S., 536. disposition simply question.7 14 here, there natural tendency—to consciously resisted, course—to reverse holding could certiorari; otherwise, devoted efforts solely addressing does meet standards guide exercise jurisdiction. Our thus petition. Faithful inform seek here continue "disapprove grant certiorari." Irvine California, 347 128, 129 (1954) (plurality opinion). below, there. decline propriety lacks standing under therefore 16 ordered. Notes: * Briefs ofamici reversal Sears Roebuck Roger Greer Kara Cenar; Trial Lawyers Public Justice Jill Fisch Arthur Bryant. Jay Smyser Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., hoped preserve suit Northern Illinois. Windmere, indemnify Sears' expenses Like Circuit, Second motions settle SeeNestle Chester's Market, 756 280, 282-284 (CA2 1985). Third, Columbia, Seventh Circuits deny motions. See Clarendon Ltd. Nu-West Industries, 936 127 (CA3 1991); re States, 927 626 (CADC Memorial Hospital Iowa County, 862 1299 (CA7 1988). Ninth requires balance "the competing values finality relitigation unreviewed disputes." Ringsby Truck Lines, Western Conference Teamsters, 686 720, 722 (1982). initial version Rule, promulgated 1954, stated: comprised therein court." 23.1(c), Rules 346 951, 972 (1954). current dates back 1980, amended Rules. 1980 changes syntax obviously alter substance terms standing, concluding "not motion."U. 731 note fact portion bring properly usRadzanower Touche Ross 426 148, 151, Nor "[t]he mentioned argument us." Mazer Stein, 201, 206, Contrary dissent's suggestion, post, 35-36, discussed text us. review. Even adopted, indicated unwillingness inGeneral Talking Pictures Electric 304 175, 179 (1938): "One having obtained specified entitled obtain other issue." Jackson stated, writing plurality 129-130 (1954): "We disapprove fixed unless grant, frequently avoid settled, frivolous state Stevens dissent urges ofUnited Williams, 504 36 (1992), provides authority disagree. There applied different rule—the precludes "was pressed passed below." 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). lower court, id., 39, 17 JUSTICE STEVENS, whom BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. 18 When pending ask appellate they differences, take without effect third parties? Subsumed affected allowed object vacation judgment. answered incorrectly. 19 manufactures electric razors Japan sells American distributors, including Roebuck. indemnified distributors liability dress infringement. Respondent competitor protracted distributors. Florida, dismissing respondent's claims awarding $89,644,257 plus attorney's fees, interest, costs counterclaim. Illinois, held collaterally estopped pursuing certain Sears. Thereafter, differences payment million agreement join 20 settlement. Promptly settling tried lacked intervention. then vacate. attention reinstated indemnitee (Sears). 21 presenting question.1 itself entire section refuting too insignificant justify intervention.2 opposition, raised.3 consideration arguments, nevertheless might, expressly directed argue two separately, now apparent direction unnecessary canvassed issues. 22 "subsidiary answer validity For routine proper, point allowing hand, ever potential impact third-party interests, case.4 If improper, reasons denying clearly insufficient. stake outcome motion, significantly increased indemnitee. formal irrelevant very purpose acquire status 23 I concede still think inappropriate view certiorari, today rests purely technicality failed frame separate introduce argument. Given occasional ordering raised,5 ironic omission given critical weight. Indeed, punishes technical much severely punished similar Until today, never violation predecessors.6 24 To decision, majority quotes 519 proposition prudential, disregarded "`"only cases,"'"7 ante, 32. But omits next words, explain proper aside rule "where urgency economy suggest need unpresented question." (1992) (emphasis added). Judicial served invoking rules "after received plenary merits. represents commitment scarce judicial deciding petition." Oklahoma City Tuttle, 471 808, 815-816 (1985) original). Canton Harris, 489 378, 384 recently used stronger language refused rejected process noted 25 "proposes that—after briefing, argument, full Justices Court— entertain same reason originally it, That improvident indeed. entirely accord traditional practice, imprudent (since doubt case) course late stage." 36, 40 (1992).8 26 opinion explains why ordinarily bars questions. First, prevents surprise, ensuring briefing; second, allows select focus 535-536. Neither applies here. opening brief, opportunity. failure word "intervention" "Question Presented" interfere efficient selection review, since fully aware needed resolved surprising Yee's explanation fit circumstances intended basis dismissal, and, purpose.9 suggests strict enforcement "there Ante, 34. Reliance flimsy underestimates character quality decisional processes. overlooks temptation time Nothing changed dismissal am persuaded objectionable condemned Cardinal Chemical Morton International, 508 83 (1993).10 appropriate mootness deprives appellant opportunity Munsingwear, 340 (1950), justification apply achieved purchase. precedents presumptively correct valuable legal community whole. They property private litigants stand concludes public 29 argues policy vacating whenever encourage will, affect settlements negotiated evidence number appreciably policy. experience California demonstrates contrary well true.11 indicate benefit form saving work probably offset burdens imposed later proceedings. regular these supported showing special create pressure advance product system least weighed Appeals. Pet. Cert. i substantive four lettered sections. fourth, D, prospect Illinois gave "an immediate direct challenging settlement," "Izumi vacatur." 14, Brief Opposition 2, 4-5 SeeNational Union Fire Pittsburgh Seafirst 891 762, 764 (CA9 1989) (intervention allow nonparty judgment). Christianson Colt Industries Operating 484 985 (1987) (directing jurisdictional question); Eisen Carlisle Jacquelin, 414 908 (1973) (same); Payne Tennessee, 498 1076 (1991); Patterson McLean Credit Union, 485 617 (1988). 1990, 1990 revisions renumbered substantially 1954. 21.1(a) (1980) (identical rule); 23.1(c) ("Only court"). either earlier rules. harsher governed between 1939 "questions specifically forward petition," sanctioned violations 38.2 (1939) notes exception fall presented,ante, 33, fails recognize here—the intervention—is falls exception. thatWilliams concerned "`was below' "—but forgiven easily 14.1(a). 34, 7. anything, might reluctant waive requiring presentation ensures adequate development protects courts. addition, satisfied "because court," 43-45. comparable response precluding "question presented" Most importantly, misses passage quoted Williams. "even if" violated, "it stage."Id., 40. 6,supra. InCardinal discontinue moot declaratory validityupon affirmance finding infringed. Barnett, Making Decisions Disappear: Depublication Stipulated Reversal Court, Loyola (LA) Rev. 1033, 1073 years endorsed settlement, experiment appeals. vacation, Division Fourth Appellate did. Comparison rates rest discourage fact, rate twice high

Category: 8