Morrison Foerster’s All Things Appeals provides comprehensive insights and in-depth analyses on the latest trends and complex issues shaping the appellate landscape across various courts.Our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/appellate-supreme-court" target="_blank">Supreme Court and Appellate Practice</a> includes two former assistants to the Solicitor General, three partners who have collectively presented argument before the Supreme Court more than two dozen times, and attorneys who have argued hundreds of federal and state appellate court appeals across the country.<h2>About Morrison Foerster</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Subscribe

Editors

All Things Appeals

Seth Lloyd is a partner in the Appellate and Supreme Court practice with particular experience arguing and briefing high stakes patent appeals at the Federal Circuit. Seth is a go-to appellate attorney for complex appeals and has argued many cases in federal and state appellate courts across the country. He is especially skilled in appeals at the intersection of law and technology, where he leverages his strong technical background. Clients appreciate Seth’s ability to distill complicated scientific and legal principles into clear and winning arguments. He takes that approach in the Federal Circuit, where he handles appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. Seth’s winning oral arguments include a successful reversal of three PTAB decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Seth is also co-chair of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Administrative Law & Regulatory Committee. Seth regularly practices in the United States Supreme Court. He has drafted petitions and amicus briefs at the certiorari stage, as well as party and amicus briefs at the merits stage. Seth also moots members of the bar for Supreme Court arguments through the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute and is a barrister in the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court. In 2025, Seth won the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network’s Judicial Advocacy Initiative Award for his pro bono work in support of access to healthcare.Before joining Morrison Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford and holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, also from Stanford. During his graduate studies, Seth received the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, published 10 peer-reviewed articles, and co-invented the subject matter of five U.S. patents.<h4>Appellate Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251104-genuine-enabling-tech-llc-v-sony-grp-corp" target="_self">Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony Grp. Corp.</a> (25:25) (Fed. Cir.) Prevailed in a precedential decision affirming summary judgment of noninfringement for lack of structural equivalents to a means-plus-function claim limitation. The decision ensured a complete defense victory in a case where the patent owner sought nearly $500 million in damages. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251208-cpc-patent-technologies" target="_self">CPC Patent Technologies v. Apple Inc.</a> (14:38) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to patent claims to biometric security </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251208-cpc-patent-technologies-v" target="_self">CPC Patent Technologies v. Apple Inc.</a> (13:42) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to patent claims to biometric security </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251208-cellspin-soft-v-fitbit-llc" target="_self">Cellspin Soft v. Fitbit LLC </a>(40:48) (Fed. Cir.) Argued on behalf of multiple defendants and won affirmance of summary judgment of noninfringement for patent claims related to wireless communications </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251208-cellspin-soft-vs-fitbit-llc" target="_self">Cellspin Soft v. Fitbit LLC</a> (32:28) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won dismissal of appeal requesting recusal of district court judge</li></ul><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-renesas-electronics-v-broadcom-corporation" target="_self">Renesas Electronics Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.</a> (00:10) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to electronic device claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/251208-ams-osram-usa-v-renesas" target="_self">ams-OSRAM USA v. Renesas Electronics America </a>(00:12) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won partial reversal, partial affirmance, and partial vacatur of district court trade secrets decision</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170609-netlist-inc-v-diablo-technologies" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.</a> (02:56) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won reversal for owner of computer memory patents in appeals from three consolidated inter partes reviews</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200610-google-llc-v-netlist-inc" target="_self">Google LLC v. Netlist, Inc.</a> (13:15) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for owner of computer memory patents in consolidated appeals from decade-long reexamination</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220309-apple-inc-v-mph-technologies" target="_self">Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy</a> (00:16) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to computer security claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180808-netlist-inc-v-sandisk-llc" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. SanDisk LLC</a> (01:53) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for patent owner in consolidated appeals raising APA challenges to inter partes review decisions</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/201026-nicole-k-v-stigdon" target="_self">Nicole K. v. Stigdon</a> (00:16) (7th Cir.) Argued for children in Indiana foster care raising constitutional due process claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200306-strike-3-holdings" target="_self">Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe</a> (21:40) (D.C. Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending an order refusing a subpoena to unmask an internet subscriber’s identity</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161118-harris-v-mangum" target="_self">Harris v. Mangum</a> (00:02) (9th Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending indigent prisoner’s right to a guardian ad litem</li></ul><h4>Additional Representative Matters</h4><ul><li>Novartis v. Torrent (Fed. Cir.) Revived the validity of Novartis’s foundational patent protecting its blockbuster drug Entresto®</li><li>SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University (Fed. Cir.) Revived five SNIPR patents related to CRISPR technology after prevailing in a precedential decision that reversed the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA), under which post-AIA patents could be subjected to pre-AIA interference proceedings</li><li>Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir.) Successfully defended ITC’s determination of no Section 337 violation in case involving multiple patents directed to system-on-chip technology for automobile infotainment systems</li><li>Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) Successfully beat back defendant’s push for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description on pharmaceutical genus claims, ultimately helping to secure a $775 million settlement for the patent owner</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal of district court judgment of non-infringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving Bard’s infringement case on three patents</li><li>Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (3d Cir.) Successfully defended trial victory for breach of patent licensing agreement and further won judgment entitling Washington University to prejudgment interest</li><li>Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal for Nevro of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li>Federal National Mortgage Association v. Zabriskie (9th Cir.) Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li>Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (S. Ct.) Represented U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others as amici supporting respondent in unanimous affirmance of Fair Debt Collection Act decision</li><li>BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur for petitioner of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness for patents to medical device technology</li><li>Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc. (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal of securities fraud case for failure to adequately plead falsity</li><li>Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured dismissal because asserted patents claimed unpatentable subject matter</li><li>Sam Francis Foundation v. Christie’s, Inc. (S. Ct.) Successfully preserved Sotheby’s en banc win at the Ninth Circuit based on the dormant Commerce Clause</li><li>Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured total victory of noninfringement for Genentech</li><li>Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. (New York Appellate Division, First Department) Secured reversal in major shareholder challenge to corporate acquisition</li><li>V.L. v. E.L. (S. Ct.) As counsel for children’s guardian ad litem, secured reversal of Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to grant full faith and credit to Georgia judgment recognizing lesbian mother as legal parent</li></ul>

lloyd_seth_blog_150x150.png

lloyd_seth_common_640x280.jpg

lloyd_seth_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lloyd_seth_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lloyd_seth_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Seth Lloyd is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice with broad experience briefing and arguing complex appeals. Seth is particularly sought after for his experience in high stakes patent appeals at the Federal Circuit, where he leverages his strong technical background and deep understanding of patent law. Clients appreciate Seth’s ability to transform complicated scientific and legal principles into clear and winning arguments.

Seth Lloyd

Aileen McGrath is a leading appellate attorney and partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. She represents clients in high-stakes appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and appellate courts across the country, with a particular focus on California appellate litigation.Known for her exceptional legal writing, strategic acumen, and oral advocacy, Aileen is described by clients as “extraordinarily knowledgeable,” “one of the best writers I have ever seen,” and uniquely skilled at crafting “the most effective strategy” in complex, bet-the-company cases. (Chambers USA)A broad range of sophisticated clients turn to Aileen to lead their appeals. Aileen has a robust track record, including arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court and leading many other Supreme Court matters at the merits and certiorari stages. She has also argued multiple appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and California Courts of Appeal and led representations at the California Supreme Court.Aileen’s appellate practice encompasses a broad range of areas, including:<ul><li>Class actions and consumer protection litigation</li><li>Constitutional law and civil rights cases</li><li>Labor and employment disputes</li><li>State and local government litigation</li><li>Administrative law (state and federal)</li></ul>In addition to her appellate work, Aileen is a trusted legal advisor known for her creative problem-solving and strategic collaboration with clients. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Aileen served as Co-Chief of Appellate Litigation at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. She also served as Deputy City Attorney on the Complex and Affirmative Litigation team, acting as lead counsel for San Francisco in numerous significant matters at all levels of the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court.Aileen served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and then-Chief Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She also served as a chambers attorney at the California Supreme Court for Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar.Aileen is an active member of the Bar Association of San Francisco and the Association of Business Trial Lawyers Northern California chapter. She maintains a robust pro bono practice, and she has been recognized by the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the California County Counsel’s Association for her dedication to local-government public interest work. She regularly guests lectures about oral advocacy and effective appellate writing at law schools across the country, including Yale Law School, UC Berkeley School of Law, UC Law San Francisco, and American University Washington College of Law. Aileen also frequently speaks publicly about the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.Aileen earned her J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where she was awarded the prestigious Sears Prize, recognizing the top two students in her class. She also served as president of the Harvard Law Review. She received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Columbia University.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/240109-george-sheetz-county-el-dorado" target="_self">Sheetz v. County of El Dorado</a> (44:10) Argued on behalf of California local government in a U.S. Supreme Court property-rights case with significant national implications for land-use planning.</li><li>Successfully opposed a U.S. Supreme Court petition for certiorari in a Fourth Amendment case involving a circuit conflict.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220726-teresa-armstrong-v-michaels-stores" target="_self">Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc.</a> (12:57) Argued and won a Ninth Circuit appeal in a case seeking to upend the standard for analyzing waiver of the right to move to compel arbitration.</li><li>Viqual Medical Technology LLC v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Argued and won California appeal defending a complete summary judgment victory on behalf of the country’s largest integrated healthcare system in a $900M+ trade secret case involving wearable medical device technologies.</li><li>In re: Décor Holdings Argued and won a Second Circuit victory in a bankruptcy appeal challenging the assumption and assignment of a package pickup and delivery contract to a third-party purchaser in a Chapter 11 proceeding.</li><li>Successfully defeated class certification on behalf of a leading telecommunications company, and successfully led appellate representation to defeat plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) petition for Ninth Circuit interlocutory review.</li><li>Served as lead counsel to a leading multinational provider of database, cloud, and enterprise technology solutions in a Ninth Circuit appeal, successfully defending final approval of a putative privacy class action settlement.</li><li>Successfully represented American Indian tribe before the Second Circuit in a significant Indian law case challenging New York State officials’ operation of state highway across tribe’s reservation.</li><li><a href="https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/audio/?20191202/18-17308/" target="_blank">City & County of San Francisco v. Barr</a> (10:43) Successfully challenged federal government’s denial of Byrne JAG funding for sanctuary cities, including briefing and arguing appeal before Ninth Circuit and opposing petition for certiorari.</li><li>Successfully briefed and argued appeal in landmark California water rights case challenging the operation of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210301-jesica-rivera-v-merrick-garland" target="_self">Rivera v. Garland</a> (00:00) Argued and won a Ninth Circuit immigration victory in a case seeking asylum for a mother and her young daughter who fled gang violence in El Salvador.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/250123-twin-metals-minnesota-llc-v-united-states" target="_self">Twin Metals Minnesota LLC v. United States</a> (59:03) Argued high-profile D.C. Circuit appeal on behalf of a coalition of environmental organizations defending the dismissal of a mining company’s lawsuit threatening to undo government efforts to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness region.</li><li>Defeated petition for en banc review in D.C. Circuit appeal challenging Department of Interior’s tribal land trust decision</li><li>Successfully defended local government retail ordinance against a dormant Commerce Clause challenge.</li><li>Served as key drafter of the U.S. Supreme Court merits briefing in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which secured marriage equality in California.</li><li>Defeated election challenge to a San Francisco ballot initiative.</li></ul>

San Francisco City Attorney's Office

mcgrath_aileen_blog_150x150.png

mcgrath_aileen_common_640x280.jpg

mcgrath_aileen_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

mcgrath_aileen_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

mcgrath_aileen_social_600x600.jpg

Aileen McGrath, a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, leads high stakes appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts across the country, with a particular focus on courts in California. Aileen has a robust track record, including arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court and leading many other Supreme Court matters at the merits and certiorari stages. She has argued multiple appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and California Courts of Appeal, and she regularly leads representations at the California Supreme Court. A broad range of sophisticated clients turn to Aileen to lead their appeals. They describe her as “one of the best writers I have ever seen,” uniquely skilled at developing “the most effective strategy” in bet-the-company cases, and “extraordinarily knowledgeable.”

Aileen McGrath

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Brian is a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals.Brian has a nationwide appellate practice. He has argued cases in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country, winning appeals involving commercial disputes, securities litigation and enforcement, government contracts, consumer class actions, and intellectual property. He has led appeals in the D.C., Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits. His arguments include significant victories in class action appeals and in appeals for leading financial services companies, with multiple victories in the Ninth Circuit, where he clerked. Brian has recently gone six for seven when representing appellants, including a precedential victory in the Ninth Circuit in a licensing dispute concerning alleged patent misuse. He also argued and won a D.C. Circuit appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the retroactivity of part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of Brian’s win, the SEC had to change its enforcement practices against certain securities industry professionals.Clients frequently turn to Brian for his substantial experience with appeals in the Federal Circuit, praising him as “an invaluable advocate in patent matters” (Chambers USA). Brian has won 15 of his last 17 appeals in that Court. His arguments before the Federal Circuit include winning appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. He has handled appeals in a myriad of industries, including mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, and software.Brian also plays a key role on trial teams, advising clients on both critical legal issues and appellate preservation. He recently argued and prevailed against a summary judgment invalidity motion in a case involving Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s revolutionary antibody recycling technology, which ultimately led to a $775 million settlement on the eve of trial for Chugai.A former law clerk for the United States Supreme Court, Brian has authored many briefs in that Court, including on important constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. He often represents clients’ interests in amicus briefs in significant Supreme Court cases affecting the business community.Leading publications have recognized Brian for his appellate skills. Chambers USA ranks him in its Intellectual Property: Appellate category, The Legal 500 US recommends him for Appellate Litigation, and the National Law Journal named him one of its Minority 40 Under 40.Brian also dedicates significant time to pro bono matters. He argued and won two significant appeals—in the Second and Ninth Circuits—obtaining reversals of judgments that had denied private rights of action under the Child Welfare Act in precedential decisions. Brian also led the Morrison Foerster team who co-counseled a successful Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s imposition of a life without the possibility of parole sentence to a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime.Brian serves on the board of directors of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. For years, Brian chaired the ABA’s seven-person Standing Committee for Amicus Curiae Briefs. He served on the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s amicus committee and co-chaired the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s amicus committee. Brian also served as an appellate lawyer representative for the Ninth Circuit. Before entering private practice, Brian clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He also clerked for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer in the Ninth Circuit and Judge David F. Levi in the Eastern District of California.While in law school, Brian served as managing editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.<h4>Representative Oral Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/260219-snipr-technologies-ltd-v-rockefeller" target="_blank">SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University</a> (Fed. Cir.). Prevailed in a precedential decision reversing the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA) that subjected patents post-dating the Act to pre-AIA interference proceedings. The decision revived five of SNIPR’s patents related to CRISPR technology. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-broadcom-corporation-v-renesas-matsui" target="_self">Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation</a> (12:40) (Fed. Cir.). Successfully argued and briefed multiple appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision and several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to an ITC investigation initiated by Broadcom involving systems-on-chip powering automobile infotainment systems. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210706-cr-bard-v-medline-industries" target="_self">C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.</a> (0:45) (Fed. Cir.). Won vacatur of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/260219-advanced-voice-recognition-systems-inc" target="_self">Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc.</a> (14:30) (Fed. Cir.). Secured a complete victory in appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board that all challenged patent claims were unpatentable. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/260219-william-paulus-v-ocera-therapeutics" target="_self">William Paulus v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc.</a> (13:25) (9th Cir.). Successfully argued and briefed appeal in a putative shareholder class action involving a tender offer. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/260219-kurtz-v-costco-wholesale-corporation" target="_self">Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation</a> (9:23) (2d Cir.). Successfully petitioned for review of a class certification decision, then argued and obtained a remand for the district court to reconsider its certification decision, and an eventual reversal on an injunctive class certification decision. </li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161117-gregory-bartko-v-sec.html" target="_self">Gregory Bartko v. SEC</a> (0:53) (D.C. Cir.). Successfully argued and obtained precedential ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not retroactively apply the Dodd-Frank Act’s industry-wide sanctions on securities professionals for certain securities violations. </li></ul>

matsui_brian_blog_150x150.png

matsui_brian_common_640x280.jpg

matsui_brian_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

matsui_brian_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

matsui_brian_social_600x600.jpg

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For nearly 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. He has argued numerous cases in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country, winning appeals involving commercial disputes, securities litigation and enforcement, government contracts, consumer class actions, and intellectual property. Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience in patent appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has argued more than 20 times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. Brian excels at applying significant legal principles to complex technologies in a way that distills them for the Court.

Brian Matsui

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s All Things Appeals provides comprehensive insights and in-depth analyses on the latest trends and complex issues shaping the appellate landscape across various courts.Our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/appellate-supreme-court" target="_blank">Supreme Court and Appellate Practice</a> includes two former assistants to the Solicitor General, three partners who have collectively presented argument before the Supreme Court more than two dozen times, and attorneys who have argued hundreds of federal and state appellate court appeals across the country.

All Appeals_blog_1200x600.png

All Things Appeals Banner

Welcome to All Things Appeals

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

MoFo Life Sciences

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insights Blog

Government Contracts Insights

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo’s All Things Appeals provides comprehensive insights and in-depth analyses on the latest trends and complex issues shaping the appellate landscape across various courts.

All Things Appeals

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from All Things Appeals.

A One-Stop Shop for Appellate Insights and Analysis

Morrison Foerster - Footer

In Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, 608 U.S. ___, 2026 WL 1336216 (U.S. May 14, 2026), the Supreme Court resolved a circuit...

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Appeals - Statistics

CAFC Statistics

Blog - Topics

California

Federal Circuit

Fourth Circuit

Ninth Circuit

Second Circuit

Seventh Circuit

Supreme Court

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

The Jurisdictional Rope He Handed Them: Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties | All Things Appeals

Lauren Pardee Ruben

In Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, 608 U.S. ___, 2026 WL 1336216 (U.S. May 14, 2026), the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split that had arisen under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. In a brief opinion, the Court unanimously held that if a federal court has stayed claims in a pending action under the FAA, it maintains jurisdiction to later confirm or vacate any resulting arbitral award. While the opinion is straightforward, the underlying facts reflect a quiet irony that shows how a plaintiff’s initial strategy can potentially backfire.The factsAdrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles. When he accepted the job, he signed an agreement that any disputes arising out of his employment would be resolved by arbitration. Notwithstanding the agreement, when his employment ended, he filed an unlawful-discrimination suit in federal court.After the employer invoked the arbitration clause, the district court stayed the federal proceedings under Section 3 of the FAA pending arbitration. Jules went to arbitration. He lost—on every claim—and the arbitrator awarded roughly $34,500 in sanctions against him for litigation misconduct, including his refusal to participate in the arbitral hearing on his own claims.The employer returned to the same federal district court to confirm the award. Jules opposed confirmation and moved to vacate, arguing that under Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), the district court lacked jurisdiction: the parties were not diverse, the amount in controversy was below $75,000, and the confirm-or-vacate motions presented no independent federal question because the FAA does not itself create federal jurisdiction.It was a legally serious argument. But it ran headlong into an obstacle that Jules himself had created.The jurisdictional reasoningIn Badgerow, the Court had held that a party seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitral award in a freestanding federal action—filed for that purpose alone—cannot manufacture jurisdiction by looking through the FAA motion to the underlying dispute. Without diversity or a federal question on the face of the motion, there is no federal jurisdiction.That rule would have protected Jules—if he had honored his arbitration agreement. Had Jules proceeded directly to arbitration as the agreement required, the employer’s subsequent motion to confirm the award in federal court would have been exactly the kind of freestanding action Badgerow forecloses. No diversity, no federal question, no federal forum. The employer’s enforcement options would have been limited to state court.But Jules didn’t honor the agreement. He filed in federal court, establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And the stay did not extinguish that jurisdiction—it merely paused the proceedings. When the parties returned with their confirm-or-vacate motions, the court looked not at those motions in isolation, but at the suit already before it: the one Jules had filed. The federal court’s jurisdiction carried through to the end.The irony is pointed. By ignoring his arbitration agreement and filing in federal court, Jules handed the employer a federal enforcement mechanism that would not have existed had he simply complied with the agreement in the first place. The federal forum he chose to pursue his claims became the federal forum used to confirm the award against him. The rope, so to speak, was Jules’.What the Court heldThe Court confirmed that a federal court that stays claims under Section 3 of the FAA retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award under Sections 9 and 10. Because the court has jurisdiction over the original claims and does not lose that jurisdiction while the case is stayed pending arbitration, it retains jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitral award resolving those claims is valid and should be confirmed. The Badgerow rule applies only to freestanding confirm-or-vacate actions with no pre-existing federal lawsuit.The decision reinforces Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024), which held that Section 3 requires a stay rather than dismissal. The Court’s decision in Jules makes explicit what Spizzirri implied: the mandatory stay exists so that the district court can superintend the arbitration all the way through, including at the confirm-or-vacate stage.The takeawayJules is a tidy opinion resolving a circuit split—the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits had reached the result the Court affirmed; the Fourth Circuit had disagreed. But there was a sting in its facts. For counsel advising clients who are tempted to file suit in federal court despite a broad arbitration clause, the case is a useful reminder: that decision has consequences that extend beyond the threshold question of arbitrability. A federal filing ensures that whatever comes out of that arbitration can be enforced—or challenged—in the same federal court. Choose your forum carefully, because it may end up being your opponent’s forum too.

The Jurisdictional Rope He Handed Them: Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

More

Of Counsel

The Federal Circuit’s Ollnova Decision Sharpens the Rules for Patent Verdict Forms and § 101 Jury Instructions

Supreme Court Confirms No Private Right of Action Under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act

Inextricably Intertwined: The Fourth Circuit Invokes Rare Doctrine of Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction

No Writ, New Law: Ninth Circuit Uses Denied Mandamus Petition to Settle PSLRA Lead Plaintiff Rebuttal Standard

The Second Circuit Holds That Federally Chartered Corporations Have No Citizenship Under § 1332, Limiting Diversity Jurisdiction

LinkedIN

Youtube