Late Friday afternoon, the Court granted certiorari in eight cases:

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Company, No. 12-761: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, No. 12-786: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) of the Patent Act even though no one has committed direct infringement under §271(a).

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369: (1) Does the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations—so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court—defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming? (2) Does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?

Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842: Whether post-judgment discovery in aid of enforcing a judgment against a foreign state can be ordered with respect to all assets of a foreign state regardless of their location or use, as held by the Second Circuit, or is limited to assets located in the United States that are potentially subject to execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §1602 et seq., as held by the Seventh, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193: (1) To challenge a speech-suppressive law, must a party whose speech is arguably proscribed prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold? (2) Did the Sixth Circuit err by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law manifestly disagree?

United States v. Clarke, No. 13-301: Whether an unsupported allegation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a summons for an improper purpose entitles an opponent of the summons to an evidentiary hearing to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing the summons.

CTS Corporation v. Waldberger, No. 13-339: Did the Fourth Circuit correctly interpret 42 U.S.C. §9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which preempts the state statute of limitations’ commencement date for certain state-law tort actions, to apply to state statutes of repose in addition to state statutes of limitations?

ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461: Whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.