Exxon Mobil Corporation, Petitioner v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba), et al.

ExxonMobil sued a Cuban state-owned company under the Helms-Burton Act over use of the Esso trademark on gas stations seized after the Cuban revolution. The Supreme Court said Helms-Burton does not, by itself, remove foreign sovereign immunity; plaintiffs still must fit within an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

This makes it harder for companies and property owners to recover damages from Cuban state-owned entities under Helms-Burton. For example, ExxonMobil now must show that an exception to foreign sovereign immunity applies before its trademark-related claim can move forward.

The case now goes back to the lower courts to apply the Supreme Court's reading of the immunity rules. ExxonMobil and similar plaintiffs must try to show a valid Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception, while Cuban state-owned defendants can press immunity defenses.

The dispute was whether Helms-Burton alone lets ExxonMobil sue a Cuban state-owned company in U.S. court. The Court said plaintiffs also must satisfy a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception.

It raises another barrier for plaintiffs seeking damages. Some cases may be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot show an exception to foreign sovereign immunity.

Lower courts must reconsider the case using the Supreme Court's rule. ExxonMobil must show that its claim fits an exception under the foreign-immunity statute.