THE STATISTICS
`
`TABLE ja
`(A) ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES
`
`OPINIONS WRITTENb
`
`DISSENTING VOTES'
`In Disposition by
`
`Opinions Concur-
`of Courtd
`rencese Dissentse
`
`TOTAL
`
`Opinion
`
`Memo-
`randum f
`
`TOTAL
`
`Roberts
`Kennedy
`
`Thomas
`
`Ginsburg
`
`Breyer
`
`Alito
`
`Sotomayor
`
`Kagan
`
`Gorsuch
`Per Curiam
`
`Total
`
`6
`
`6
`
`7
`
`6
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`6
`
`7
`12
`
`71
`
`1
`5
`
`15
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`7
`
`2
`
`4
`
`-
`
`42
`
`4
`
`2
`
`9
`
`6
`
`9
`
`6
`
`9
`
`1
`
`6
`
`-
`
`52
`
`11
`13
`
`31
`
`15
`
`19
`
`15
`
`23
`
`9
`
`17
`12
`
`165
`
`5
`6
`
`14
`
`18
`
`20
`
`15
`
`21
`
`16
`
`11
`-
`
`126
`
`0
`0
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`0
`
`0
`
`4
`
`-
`
`5
`6
`
`15
`
`18
`
`20
`
`16
`
`23
`
`16
`
`11
`-
`
`130
`
`a A complete explanation of how the tables are compiled may be found in The Supreme Court,
`2oo4 Term - The Statistics, II9 HARV. L. REV. 415, 415-I9 (2005). Table I, with the exception of
`the dissenting-votes portion of section (A) and the memorandum tabulations in section (C), includes
`only full-opinion decisions. Twelve per curiam decisions contained legal reasoning substantial
`enough to be considered full-opinion decisions in October Term 2017. See Sause v. Bauer, 138 S.
`Ct. 2561 (2018); Sexton v. Beaudreaux, I38 S. Ct. 2555 (2oi8); North Carolina v. Covington, I38 S.
`Ct. 2548 (2oi8); Benisek v. Lamone, I38 S. Ct. 1942 (2oi8); Azar v. Garza, I38 S. Ct. 1790 (2018);
`United States v. Microsoft Corp., I38 S. Ct ii86 (2oi8); Kisela v. Hughes, I38 S. Ct 1148 (2Q18); CNH
`Industrial N.V v. Reese, i38 S. Ct 761 (2Q18); Tharpe v. Sellers, I38 S. Ct. 545 (2018); In re United
`States, I38 S. Ct 443 (2oi8); Dunn v. Madison, I38 S. Ct. 9 (2017); Kernan v. Cuero, I 38 S. Ct 4 (2017).
`This table includes every opinion designated by the Court as a 2017 Term Opinion except for
`five. See Opinions of the Court
`2- 017, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, https://www.
`supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/i7 [https://perma.cc/ELC6-R9A 5 ]. In three of the omitted
`opinions, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. See Cox v. United
`States, 138 S. Ct. 2273 (2018) (mem.); Dalmazzi v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2273 (2018) (mem.); City
`of Hays v. Vogt, 138 S. Ct. 1683 (2018) (mem.). The remaining two omitted opinions are Washington
`v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1832 (2018) (mem.), in which an equally divided Court affirmed the
`judgment of the court below, and Montana v. Wyoming, 138 S. Ct. 758 (2018) (mem.), in which the
`Court issued a decree without an opinion.
`A memorandum order is a case decided by summary order and contained in the Court's
`weekly order lists issued throughout the Term. This category excludes summary orders designated
`as opinions by the Court. The memorandum tabulations include memorandum orders disposing of
`cases on their merits by affirming, reversing, vacating, or remanding. They exclude orders disposing
`of petitions for certiorari, dismissing writs of certiorari as improvidently granted, dismissing appeals
`for lack of jurisdiction, disposing of miscellaneous applications, and certifying questions for review.
`The memorandum tabulations also exclude orders relating to payment of docketing fees and dis-
`sents therefrom.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`IPR2018-01607
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1071, p. 447
`
`

`

`2018]
`
`THE SUPREME COURT-
`
`THE STATISTICS
`
`TABLE jja
`(A) FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASES
`
`Disposed of
`
`Remaining on Docket
`
`TOTAL
`
`Original Docket
`Appellate Docketc
`Miscellaneous Dockete
`
`Total
`
`1b
`1728
`4463
`
`6192
`
`7
`334 d
`857 d
`
`1198
`
`8
`2062
`5320
`
`7390
`
`(B) CASES GRANTED REVIEW f
`
`Review Granted g Petitions Consideredh
`
`Percent Granted
`
`Appellate Docket
`Miscellaneous Docket
`
`Total
`
`70
`8
`
`78
`
`1762
`4467
`
`6229
`
`4.0%
`0.2%
`
`1.3%
`
`a All numbers in Tables II(A), II(B), and II(C) are derived from data provided by the Supreme
`Court.
`b The case counted here is Texas v. New Mexico, -38 S. Ct. 954 (2oi8). The Court heard a
`second original jurisdiction case, Florida v. Georgia, 138 S. Ct. 2502 (2018), which is considered a
`full opinion disposing of the case on the merits for the purposes of Tables I(A), I(BI), I(BII), and
`III. Because the Court remanded the case to a Special Master, however, the Court counts Florida
`v. Georgia among the cases remaining on its docket.
`c The appellate docket consists of all paid cases.
`d The number of cases remaining on the appellate and miscellaneous dockets is calculated by
`adding the number of cases not acted upon in the 2 Ol 7 Term to the number of cases granted review
`in the 2O17 Term but carried over to the 2o18 Term.
`e The miscellaneous docket consists of all cases filed informa pauperis.
`f Table II(B) reports data that versions of Table II prior to 998 reported under the label
`"Review Granted." For a full explanation, see The Supreme Court, 1997 Term - The Statistics, 112
`HARV. L. REV. 366, 372 n.d (998). Table II(B) does not include cases within the Court's original
`jurisdiction.
`g The number of cases granted review includes only those cases granted plenary review in the
`2017 Term. It includes neither cases summarily decided nor those granted review in a previous
`Term and carried over to the 2017 Term. It does include cases granted review in the 2017 Term but
`carried over to a subsequent Term.
`h The number of petitions considered is calculated by adding the number of cases docketed in
`the 2017 Term to the number of cases carried over from prior Terms and subtracting the number
`of cases not acted upon in the 2017 Term.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`IPR2018-01607
` Petitioner Microsoft Corp. - Ex. 1071, p. 455
`
`