If the Supreme Court granted Samsung's petition
from writ of certiorari, the outcome could have similarly positive effects as the recent Lexmark decision.
Not exact matches
The most notable judicial stab at noir came last year
from Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent opposing a denial
of writ of certiorari in Pennsylvania v. Dunlap.
The appeal
from that order was therefore properly «in» the Court
of Appeals, and the case is now properly before this Court on the
writ of certiorari before judgment.
San Francisco, CA (Law Firm Newswire) January 27, 2017 — A team
from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, led by Theodore B. Olson, the former Solicitor General
of the United States, will represent Mandana D. Farhang and M.A. Mobile Ltd. in the Supreme Court
of the United States in opposition to a petition for a
writ of certiorari recently filed by the Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur (IITK).
Our limited grant
of the
writ of certiorari has withdrawn
from our consideration at this date those questions, which include, inter alia, sufficiency
of the evidence, composition
of jury, and conduct
of the trial.
Apple has just responded to Samsung's mid-December petition for
writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) regarding two legal questions concerning design patents and, in the same document, to amicus curiae («friend
of the court») briefs
from major industry players, many IP law professors and various public interest advocates, all
of whom agree with Samsung that the top U.S. court should take a look at this matter.
questions
of «scope
of review» and the «face
of the record» rule had arisen even before the
writ of error was clearly distinguished
from certiorari.