NVIDIA
v.
E. OHMAN J:OR FONDER AB
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
NVIDIA sought Supreme Court review of a Ninth Circuit decision via certiorari, but the Supreme Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted, leaving the lower court decision intact without addressing the merits.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, meaning the Court should not have accepted the case for review.
“The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”
The sole substantive holding of the opinion, indicating the Supreme Court's decision to withdraw review of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between NVIDIA Corp. and E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB that proceeded through the federal courts, ultimately reaching the Ninth …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amicus Curiae Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published.
Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors. 20 OCTOBER TERM, 2024 Syllabus NVIDIA CORP. et al. v. E.
OHMAN J:OR FONDER AB et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 23–970.
Argued November 13, 2024—Decided December 11, 2024 Certiorari dismissed.
Reported below: 81 F. 4th 918.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Neal Kumar Katyal argued the cause for petitioners.
With him on the briefs were Katherine B.
Wellington, William E.
Havemann, Reedy C.
Swanson, Sarah M.
Lightdale, Patrick J.
Hayden, John C.
Dwyer, Patrick E.
Gibbs, Samantha A. Kirby, and Kathleen R. Hartnett.
Deepak Gupta argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the brief were Jonathan E.
Taylor, Gregory A. Beck, Eric F. Citron, Jennifer D.
Bennett, Salvatore J.
Graziano, and Andrew L.
Zivitz.
Colleen E.
Roh Sinzdak argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
With her on the brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, Michael A. Conley, and Daniel Staroselsky.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Atlantic Legal Foundation by Lawrence S.
Ebner; for the Digital Chamber by Frank Scaduto, Kevin B.
Muhlendorf, and Krystal B.
Swendsboe; for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by James N.
Kramer and Daniel A. Ru- bens; and for Joseph A. Grundfest by Christopher G.
Michel.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association for Justice by Robert S.
Peck and Jeffrey R. White; for the Anti-Fraud Coalition by Tejinder Singh; for Certain Institutional Investors by Paul Bland; for Quantitative Experts by John Paul Schnapper- Cite as: 604 U. S. 20 (2024) 21 Counsel Casteras, Mark C.
Rifkin, Benjamin Y.
Kaufman, Matthew M.
Guiney, Laura H.
Posner, Carol V.
Gilden, and Nicholas I.
Porritt; and for Scholars of Civil Procedure by J.
Carl Cecere, Jeremy A. Lieberman, and Emma Gilmore.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for Former SEC Officials by Samuel H.
Rudman, Daniel P. Chiplock, and Michael J.
Miarmi; for Brian T.
Fitzpatrick by Javier Bleichmar and Joseph A. Fonti; and for Thomas Fuller Ogden, pro se.
Reporter’s Note The attached opinion has been revised to reflect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports.
The revised pagination makes available the official United States Reports citation in advance of publication.
The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or filed briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus.
Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation.
The following additional edits were made: None
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nvidia v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, 604 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2024)…were filed for the American Association for Justice by Robert S. Peck and Jeffrey R. White; for the Anti-Fraud Coalition by Tejinder Singh; for Certain Institutional Investors by Paul Bland; for Quantitative Experts by John Paul Schnapper- Cite as: 604 U. S. 20 (2024) 21 Counsel Casteras, Mark C. Rifkin, Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Matthew M. Guiney, Laura H. Posner, Carol V. Gilden, and Nicholas I. Porritt; and for Scholars of Civil Procedure by J. Carl Cecere, Jeremy A. Lieberman, and Emma Gilmore. Brie…
Authorities Cited
- Nvidia v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, 604 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2024)