Presumably in an effort to get earlier and ultimately more attention from the Supreme Court clerks evaluating cert petitions, Samsung yesterday filed (once agai well ahead of a deadline) an optional reply brief in support of its request that the Supreme Court review the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in the second Apple v. Samsung case (this post continues below the document): (fosspatents.com)
In a 35 ‑ page reply brief filed yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, government lawyers argue once again that U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling was erroneously based on the conclusion that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for hESC research violate a law barring federally funded research that harms embryos. (sciencemag.org)
Parole is not back: footnote 3 of the SG's reply brief says the abolition of parole can be severed. (sentencing.typepad.com)