U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corporation formed a joint venture with Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (Saudi), a company based in Saudi Arabia. Twenty years later, a dispute arose over license royalties Saudi had charged the joint venture. Saudi filed a lawsuit in Delaware state court seeking a declaratory order that the royalties were calculated in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement. Two weeks later and before trial commenced in state court, Exxon filed suit in federal district court.

Saudi sought dismissal of the federal suit, but its motion was denied. Saudi then filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s refusal to dismiss. Before the federal court of appeals rendered a decision on that issue, a Delaware state jury found in Exxon’s favor and awarded it $400 million.

Eight months later, the federal court of appeals held that although the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction when Exxon filed its suit, that jurisdiction was terminated when the state court verdict was rendered.

The appeals court applied a doctrine that prevents federal district courts from serving as appellate courts for parties that lose in state court, because only the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review state court decisions. How should the U.S. Supreme Court rule on appeal? [Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280

(2005).]