New York City on Monday failed before the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit it filed against the gun industry.

New York sued several gun manufacturers in 2000, arguing the companies violated a state public nuisance law with their marketing and distribution of the firearms products they sell. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC), Colt's Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR) and Glock GmbH.

A federal law enacted in 2005 sought to shield gun makers from lawsuits like the one New York filed, prompting a federal judge to throw the case out. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in April 2008 upheld that ruling by a 2-1 vote.

New York, in a court brief, said the 2005 law violates state rights under the U.S. Constitution. "This congressional effort to control how states make law raises important questions about the Tenth Amendment's protections of state sovereignty," New York said.

The gun manufacturers, in a joint legal brief, said the federal appeals court correctly applied the 2005 statute and argued the law does not violate the Constitution. "This case does not qualify for Supreme Court review," the gun makers said.

The case is New York v. Beretta, 08-530.

In other Supreme Court action:

- The justices let stand a federal appeals ruling that said Thomson Reuters Corp. (TRI) didn't infringe on a patent related to online municipal-bond auctions.

A federal trial court in 2006 ordered Thomson to pay $77 million in damages and found the company had infringed on a patent held by Pittsburgh-based MuniAuction for software related to muni-bond trading.

The Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, a special patent appeals court, overturned the patent judgment last year. The case is MuniAuction Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 08-847.

- The high court rejected a bid from Apotex Inc. to overturn a lower court holding that its generic version of Prilosec, a heartburn medication, infringed on AstraZeneca PLC (AZN) patents.

Apotex, based in North York, Ontario, is one of several companies sued by AstraZeneca over generic versions of Prilosec. Lower courts ruled Apotex had violated patents on the drug, which lost patent protection in 2002.

The case is Apotex v. AstraZeneca AB, 08-867.

- The justices told lower courts to review the status a case against drug manufacturers, in light of its 6-3 ruling last week in Wyeth v. Levine that pharmaceutical aren't immune from product liability lawsuits filed in state courts.

The lawsuit deals with whether several pharmaceutical companies should have warned about the increased suicide risk antidepressants can have for some patients. That case, brought by the families of two people who killed themselves while taking antidepressants in 2003, involves GlaxoSmithKline PLC's (GSK) Paxil, Pfizer Inc.'s (PFE) Zoloft and Apotex's generic version of Paxil.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Food and Drug Administration oversight of prescription drugs bars the lawsuits. The FDA has been active in reviewing and requiring warning and labeling statements for antidepressants.

-By Mark H. Anderson, Dow Jones Newswires, 202 862-9254; mark.anderson@dowjones.com