Today at the Supreme Court: 4/30/07
The Court is scheduled to issue regular orders at 10 AM eastern and is also likely to release one or more opinions at that time. We will have coverage of both as soon as possible after they are made public.
Every post published in April 2007, most recent first.
The Court is scheduled to issue regular orders at 10 AM eastern and is also likely to release one or more opinions at that time. We will have coverage of both as soon as possible after they are made public.
With Justice Kennedy’s opinion today in KSR, it is now likely and unsurprising, but by no means certain, that the Chief Justice is writing the lead opinion(s) in the Seattle and Louisville equal protection cases.
Today’s Order List is here. There were five opinions today: The opinion in KSR v. Teleflex is here. Microsoft v. AT&T is here. United Hauler’s is here. Scott v. Harris is here. The Court has also posted a video along with its decision here (Real Video). EC Term of Years Trust is here.
The AP’s Pete Yost has this article reporting that the Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, limiting the reach of U.S. patents abroad; Peter Kaplan of Reuters reports here on the opinion in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (No. 05-1056).
In today’s Fourth Amendment decision about running a fleeing car off the road, there is a factual dispute about exactly what happened, and the Court notes that because the case is in a summary judgment posture, ordinarily it would accept the plainitiff’s version of the facts for purposes of the
UPDATED 11:36 a.m. The Supreme Court on Monday denied review of the latest Guantanamo Bay appeal, involving two prisoners who face war crimes trials before “military commissions.” Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter voted to hear the joint appeal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Ahmed Khadr, but it takes the votes of four to grant review.
The Supreme Court, in a major victory for Microsoft Corp., ruled by a 7-1 vote on Monday that U.S. patent law does not bar foreign making of copies of digital code to be installed in computers made and sold abroad.
This analysis of the Court’s decision is from Lawrence Ebert, a New Jersey patent lawyer whose blog IPBiz covers intellectual property news.
Though two Justices tried hard in separate opinions to ease the impact of the Supreme Court’s rulng Monday on high-speed police chases, the fact remains that the main opinion had the unqualified support of six Justices and did lay down a hard-and-fast constitutional rule.
The following commentary is from Michael Barclay of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The views expressed in this posting are those of the individual author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his law firm or any of his clients.