Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder Ab

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 17 Jun 2024

  1. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) imposes "[e]xacting pleading requirements" on plaintiffs who file securities fraud class actions. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 311, 313 (2007). To state a claim, plaintiffs must "state with particularity all facts" supporting their allegations of falsity and must also allege "facts giving rise to a strong inference" of the required mental state. 15 U.S.C § 78u-4(b)(1), (2)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Plaintiffs frequently try to meet these requirements by claiming that internal company documents contradicted the company's public statements. This petition presents two questions that have divided the circuits about how the PSLRA's requirements apply in this common and recurring context:
  2. Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents.
  3. Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The US Supreme Court case involves NVIDIA Corporation and E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, focusing on a patent dispute related to graphics processing technology. The core issue revolves around whether NVIDIA's use of certain patented technologies infringes upon the patents held by E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB. The lower courts had previously ruled in favor of E. Ohman, finding that NVIDIA's products did indeed infringe on the specific patents in question, leading to significant financial penalties for NVIDIA as well as an injunction against further sales of the infringing products within the United States market. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld these rulings but provided clarification on how patent infringement should be assessed when it comes to complex technological innovations like those involved in this case.

Opinion of the Court

Decided 11 Dec 2024 · Official report

604us1r04_5i36.pdfOpen in a new tab

Oral argument transcript

Argued 13 Nov 2024

23-970_1b82.pdfOpen in a new tab