Narrative Opinion Summary
Motions from Intellectual Property Owners and the Information Technology Industry Council for leave to file briefs as amici curiae have been granted. Certiorari has been granted for the case. The petitioner must file their brief with the Clerk and serve it to opposing counsel by 3 p.m. on November 9, 1995. The respondent's brief is due by 3 p.m. on December 8, 1995, with a reply brief, if any, to be filed and served by 3 p.m. on December 28, 1995. Rule 29.2 of this Court does not apply. Justice Stevens did not participate in the consideration or decision regarding these motions and the petition.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amicus Curiae Participationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted motions from Intellectual Property Owners and the Information Technology Industry Council to file briefs as amici curiae, allowing them to provide information and perspective relevant to the case.
Reasoning: Motions from Intellectual Property Owners and the Information Technology Industry Council for leave to file briefs as amici curiae have been granted.
Brief Filing Deadlinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Specific deadlines were imposed for the filing of briefs by the petitioner and the respondent, ensuring a structured timeline for case preparation and review.
Reasoning: The petitioner must file their brief with the Clerk and serve it to opposing counsel by 3 p.m. on November 9, 1995. The respondent's brief is due by 3 p.m. on December 8, 1995, with a reply brief, if any, to be filed and served by 3 p.m. on December 28, 1995.
Grant of Certiorarisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court agreed to review the case by granting certiorari, indicating that the case presents significant legal questions meriting the Court's attention.
Reasoning: Certiorari has been granted for the case.
Judicial Non-Participationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Stevens abstained from participating in the consideration or decision regarding the motions and the petition, which might be due to a conflict of interest or other reasons not specified.
Reasoning: Justice Stevens did not participate in the consideration or decision regarding these motions and the petition.
Non-Application of Rule 29.2subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case is exempt from the specific procedural requirements outlined in Rule 29.2 of the Court, indicating a deviation from standard practice.
Reasoning: Rule 29.2 of this Court does not apply.