subsidiary corporation

eBay Inc. operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L.L.C., holds several patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange's patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate. eBay and Half.com continue to challenge the validity of MercExchange's patent in proceedings pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange's motion for permanent injunctive relief, 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances, 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule, 546 U.S. 1029 (2005).

Basic Incorporated was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in manufacturing chemical refractories for the steel industry. As early as 1965 or 1966 Combustion Engineering expressed interest in acquiring Basic but was deterred by antitrust concerns. In 1976 regulatory action removed the antitrust barrier and Combustion's strategic plan listed an objective to acquire Basic for thirty million dollars. Beginning in September 1976 Combustion representatives met and spoke by telephone with Basic officers and directors about a possible merger. During 1977 and 1978 Basic issued three public statements denying that merger negotiations were under way. On December 18 1978 Basic asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and announced it had been approached by another company concerning a merger. The next day Basic's board endorsed Combustion's offer of forty-six dollars per share. On December 20 1978 Basic publicly announced approval of Combustion's tender offer for all outstanding shares. Respondents are former Basic shareholders who sold their stock after Basic's October 21 1977 public statement and before the December 1978 trading suspension. Respondents brought a class action against Basic and its directors alleging that the three statements violated section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by misleading the market and causing sales at artificially depressed prices. The District Court certified the class under a presumption of reliance but granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that any misstatements were immaterial. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Upjohn Co. manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals in the United States and abroad. In January 1976, independent accountants conducting an audit of one of Upjohn's foreign subsidiaries discovered that the subsidiary had made payments to or for the benefit of foreign government officials in order to secure government business. The accountants informed Gerard Thomas, Upjohn's Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel. Thomas is a member of the Michigan and New York Bars and had served as General Counsel for twenty years. Thomas consulted with outside counsel and R. T. Parfet, Jr., Upjohn's Chairman of the Board. It was decided that the company would conduct an internal investigation of what were termed questionable payments. As part of this investigation, the attorneys prepared a letter containing a questionnaire that was sent to all foreign general and area managers over the Chairman's signature. The letter noted recent disclosures that several American companies had made possibly illegal payments to foreign government officials. It stated that Thomas had been asked to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and magnitude of any such payments. Managers were instructed to treat the investigation as highly confidential and to send responses directly to Thomas. Thomas and outside counsel also interviewed the recipients of the questionnaire and thirty-three other Upjohn officers or employees. On March 26, 1976, Upjohn voluntarily submitted a preliminary report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K disclosing the questionable payments. A copy of the report was simultaneously submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS immediately began an investigation to determine the tax consequences of the payments. On November 23, 1976, the Service issued a summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 demanding production of the records described in the summons. The records included written questionnaires sent to managers of the Upjohn Company's foreign affiliates. They also included memorandums or notes of the interviews conducted in the United States and abroad with officers and employees of the Upjohn Company and its subsidiaries. Upjohn declined to produce the documents specified in the summons on the grounds that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and constituted attorneys' work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. On August 31, 1977, the United States filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan seeking enforcement of the summons under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). The district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the summons should be enforced. Upjohn appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit rejected the magistrate's finding of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. However, it held that the privilege did not apply to the extent the communications were made by officers and agents not responsible for directing Upjohn's actions in response to legal advice. The court remanded to the district court for a determination of who was within the control group. In a footnote, the court stated that the work-product doctrine is not applicable to administrative summonses issued under 26 U.S.C. § 7602. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 1967 the Atomic Energy Commission granted Vermont Yankee a construction permit for a nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont, after the required adjudicatory hearing and reviews. Vermont Yankee later applied for an operating license; NRDC intervened and objected to exclusion of fuel-reprocessing and waste-disposal impacts from the hearing. In November 1972 the Commission opened a separate rulemaking proceeding on those fuel-cycle issues, noticed two alternative approaches based on its Environmental Survey, and conducted a February 1973 hearing at which more than forty participants submitted comments but no discovery or cross-examination occurred. In April 1974 the Commission adopted a rule assigning numerical values to fuel-cycle impacts and applied it prospectively. In January 1969 Consumers Power applied for permits to build two nuclear reactors in Midland, Michigan. After staff and ACRS review, Saginaw and Mapleton intervened and raised 119 environmental contentions, including seventeen on energy conservation. The Licensing Board held hearings on radiological issues, the staff issued a final environmental impact statement in March 1972, and further hearings occurred in May and June 1972; Saginaw declined to participate in the later hearings or submit proposed findings. The Licensing Board granted the construction permit, the Appeal Board affirmed, and the Commission declined further review. In November 1973 the Commission ruled in another case that energy-conservation evidence meeting threshold tests could be considered, but it later refused Saginaw's motion to reopen the Consumers Power record. NRDC appealed the Vermont Yankee license and rule to the D.C. Circuit; Saginaw and others appealed the Consumers Power permit. In 1976 the Court of Appeals remanded both matters, holding the fuel-cycle rulemaking procedures inadequate, the Consumers Power environmental impact statement defective for omitting energy conservation, and the ACRS report insufficiently explained. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1977. The Commission is the successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. All licensing proceedings followed the two-stage process of construction permit followed by operating license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with NEPA environmental reviews added after 1969.