Late in the day last Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted review in seven cases:

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion in patented seeds even after an authorized sale and by (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies?

Gunn v. Minton, No. 11-1118: Did the Federal Circuit depart from the standard this Court articulated in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. u. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005 ), for "arising under" jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, when it held that state law legal malpractice claims against trial lawyers for their handling of underlying patent matters come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts? Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patents, are state courts and federal courts strictly following the Federal Circuit's mistaken standard, thereby magnifying its jurisdictional error and sweeping broad swaths of state law claims - which involve no actual patents and have no impact on actual patent rights - into the federal courts?

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt., No. 11-1447: (1) Whether the government can be held liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 438 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and (2) Whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.

Arlington, Texas v. FCC & Cable, Telecommunications & Tech v. FCC, Nos. 11-1545 & 11-1547: Whether, contrary to the decisions of at least two other circuits, and in light of this Court’s guidance, a court should apply Chevron to review an agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction.

Alleyne v. United States, No. 11-9335: Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), which held that the Constitution does not require facts which increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be determined by a jury, should be overruled.

Boyer v. Louisiana, No. 11-9953: Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?

McBurney v. Young, No. 12-17: Under the Privileged and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may a state preclude citizens of other states from enjoying the same right of access to public records that the state affords its own citizens?