“A 2001 Genentech Patent Is Revoked”: Thursday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “The Patent and Trademark Office has decided to revoke a fundamental patent held by Genentech, the biotechnology company, that was at the center of a recent Supreme Court decision.”

“American Liberty at the Precipice”: The New York Times on Thursday will contain an editorial that begins, “In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court.”

“Government may reveal detention tactics”: The Miami Herald provides a news update that begins, “Thursday’s highly publicized hearing about the competency of terror defendant Jose Padilla may be focused on his mental fitness to stand trial in April.”

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting: In Thursday’s newspaper, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “Nativity scene is too religious for New York City schools; The Supreme Court this week let stand rules that keep menorahs and Christmas trees in holiday displays — but not creches.”

And the newspaper will also contain an article headlined “As earth warms, lawsuits mount; But problems arise when it comes time to pin down those responsible for climate change.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Illinois Malpractice Case May Shape Tort Reform” and “FBI Investigates Possible Letter Bomber Case” (RealPlayer required).

“Up in Smoke: The Supreme Court loses its unanimity.” Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec has this very thoughtful jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Family Research Council files amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari in Fausey v. Hiller grandparent visitation case: Attorneys for Alliance Defense Fund today filed this amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Fausey v. Hiller, No. 06-863.

Today is also the deadline for respondent’s brief in opposition. When I receive an electronic copy of the brief in opposition, I will post it online. Update: The brief in opposition can be accessed here.

“High court wrestles with software patent questions”: c|net News.com provides this report.

Reuters reports that “High court skeptical of Microsoft patent ruling.”

The Associated Press reports that “AT&T, Microsoft argue patent case.”

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “AT&T Faces High Court Skepticism In Microsoft Fight.”

“Abortion Ban Fails in S.D. Senate Panel”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A South Dakota bill to ban most abortions in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade appeared dead Wednesday after a state Senate committee rejected it.”

And The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota provides a news update headlined “Committee rejects abortion ban; action may be overturned.”

Is Stevens-Scalia the new O’Connor-Ginsburg and Scalia-Alito? At the new blog “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post about today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in which he writes: “With Roberts out, Justice John Paul Stevens presided over the oral argument — which led to a minor slip-up by former solicitor general Ted Olson, arguing for Microsoft. When Olson, a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner, rose for his rebuttal, he addressed Stevens as ‘Justice Scalia,’ which got a hearty laugh from Stevens.”

The exchange appears at page 51 of today’s oral argument transcript in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-1056:

JUSTICE STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Mr. Olson, you have, let’s see, four minutes.

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF THEODORE B. OLSON ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR. OLSON: Thank you, Justice Scalia. I mean Justice Stevens.

(Laughter.)

Back in May 2006, law.com published an installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column headlined “Scalia-Alito Is the New O’Connor-Ginsburg.”

“The BALCO Mess: Or travels in the gray areas of the confidential source arrangement.” Jack Shafer has this “Press Box” essay online at Slate.

“Are Patents Property: Zoltek v. US.” “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog” today has this post discussing the petition for writ of certiorari filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court in Zoltek Corp. v. United States.

My coverage of the Federal Circuit‘s three-judge panel ruling, from March 2006, described the case as “the F-22 stealth fighter patent infringement case.” And the “Patently-O” blog, in September 2006, provided this coverage of the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc.

“The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” Launched yesterday, and available online at this link. Among the interesting posts, here’s one noting that Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.’s home in New Jersey is now up for sale.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-1056: The Court has posted the transcript at this link.

“Microsoft patent case stirs software export fears”: c|net News.com provides a report that begins, “It’s not every day that both the U.S. government and advocates of free and open-source software align themselves in court with Microsoft.”

And online at the web site of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Todd Bishop’s “Microsoft Blog” offers a post titled “Microsoft making first Supreme Court appearance.”

Earlier today, I linked here to additional press coverage of this case.

“Court Rules Against Man Wrongly Imprisoned”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A deadline is a deadline is a deadline, the Supreme Court said Wednesday in refusing to allow a man wrongly imprisoned for more than eight years to sue the police officers who arrested him.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Guantanamo Ruling Thwarts Detainee Rights” and “Libby Perjury Trial Heads to Jury Room” (featuring Nina Totenberg). RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court Rules in Bankruptcy Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a financially troubled small businessman gave up an important right under the federal bankruptcy code because he failed to disclose all of his assets as the law requires.”

Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., No. 05-996: The Court has posted a copy of the ruling online at this link.

In this bankruptcy-related case decided by a 5-4 margin, Justice John Paul Stevens issued the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting: In today’s newspaper, Jess Bravin and Vanessa O’Connell have an article headlined “High Court Denies Altria Damages, Sets No Formula” (pass-through link).

And Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Court Rejects Detainees’ Cases; New Law Is Cited In Again Denying Guantanamo Bids” (pass-through link).

Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wallace v. Kato, No. 05-1240: The Court has posted a copy of the ruling online at this link.

“Court clarifies false arrest right to sue”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Tobacco award overturned; The high court limits damages in a smoker’s lawsuit, saying firms can’t be punished for harm to outsiders”: David G. Savage and Molly Selvin have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports today that “Justices toss $79.5M award to smoker’s widow.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “In 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court curbs punitive damages.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Businesses hail court ruling on jury awards; Philip Morris dodges $79.5 million payout.”

The Oregonian contains an article headlined “Change the amount or start over; The widow of a longtime smoker has yet to see any money for any kind of damages eight years after a favorable verdict.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Try again on punitive damages: The U.S. Supreme Court correctly assumes Oregon jurors punished Philip Morris for more than one smoker’s death.”

The Washington Times reports that “Reward to smoker’s widow nixed by top court.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Shielding the Powerful.”

And The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “Class Actions in Drag: The Supreme Court splits more differences on punitive damages” (free access).

“U.S. Supreme Court: Overturned award; Weyerhaeuser prevails in alder sawlog monopoly case.” This article appears today in The Oregonian.

“Detainees lose bid for legal rights; An appeals court says habeas corpus doesn’t apply to Guantanamo prisoners — a decision that favors Bush administration tactics in the war on terrorism”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Restore habeas rights: Now that a federal appeals court has upheld the ban on habeas corpus at Guantanamo, Congress should act.”

Today in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg has an article headlined “Panel: Guantanamo captives can’t sue in U.S. courts; An appeals panel sided with President Bush and ruled that Guantanamo captives get a military review, not the right to sue in federal court to gain their freedom.”

USA Today reports that “Administration backed on detainees; Judges say prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have no right to court.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Court hands Bush win in Gitmo case.”

“Judge rejects delay of phone wiretap suits; U.S. seeks dismissal in appeals court over national security”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge rejected the Bush administration’s request Tuesday to put wiretapping lawsuits against telephone companies on hold while the government asks an appeals court to dismiss the suits on national security grounds.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge keeps spying documents sealed; The jurist rules that it’s premature to release materials sought by the media in lawsuits challenging Bush’s domestic surveillance.” I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on the news media’s request for access.

“Ex-judge Kline gets prison; Six years of legal wrangling ends with former O.C. Superior Court judge sentenced to 27 months for child pornography”: This article appears today in The Orange County Register.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Former judge collapses as he is sentenced for child porn possession; Ex-Orange County jurist Ronald C. Kline quickly recovers; He must serve 27 months in prison and register as a sex offender.”

“In Closing Pleas, Clashing Views on Libby’s Role”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today contains articles headlined “Libby ‘Told a Dumb Lie,’ Prosecutor Says in Closing Argument” and “Ted Wells, Center Of the Defense; Scooter Libby’s Attorney Makes His Case for the Powerful.” In addition, Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “The Defense Rests, and Not a Minute Too Soon.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Libby’s memory is at the heart of the case; In closing arguments, the prosecution says Cheney’s former aide is lying; But the defense faults government witnesses.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Bush Is Chided by Prosecutor in Libby Case.”

USA Today contains an article headlined “Jurors to begin deliberations today in Libby perjury trial; Defense: Disregard opinions of Iraq war.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Scapegoat defense ridiculed.”

“Legislature 2007: Sex crime law applied unfairly, sponsor says; Two-party protest: Republican joins Democrat in criticizing Child Protection Act’s ‘Romeo-Juliet’ provision.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “A move by a Democratic senator to re-examine hundreds of sex crime convictions involving teenagers got an endorsement Tuesday from an unlikely place: the Republican sponsor of a 1995 bill cracking down on sex crimes against children.”

“When justice doesn’t add up”: Today in The Boston Globe, columnist Derrick Z. Jackson has this op-ed about yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Privacy Ruled Out In Sex Case; Court: Laws Against Trysts With Students OK.” The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “When a former New Haven teacher last fall challenged the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting school employees from having sexual relations with students, victim advocates kept a close eye on the state Supreme Court, hoping it would reject the argument that such laws infringe on the right to privacy.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Connecticut at this link. My earlier coverage of this case appears here.

“Woman Picked As Chief Justice; News Comes On Eve Of Sullivan Hearing”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday selected Appellate Court Judge Chase T. Rogers to become chief justice of the state Supreme Court, the announcement coming 10 months after her initial nominee withdrew amid a bitter controversy that will continue playing out today at a legislative hearing.”

The Stamford Advocate reports today that “New Canaan judge named to lead high court.”

And The Connecticut Post reports that “Rogers picked for state Supreme Court.”

“Why I Oppose the Death Penalty”: Martin O’Malley, the Governor of Maryland, has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

That newspaper today also contains a related article headlined “Death Penalty Debate Has Legislators Looking Inward; Legislators Grapple With Death Penalty.”

“Suit Over Fees for Inmates’ Phone Calls Is Revived”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Ruling Favors Inmates In Collect Calls Case.”

And The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports that “Court revives inmates’ lawsuit over price of phone calls.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York, that State’s highest court, at this link.

“Former chief judge wins step toward getting law license back”: The Journal News of Westchester, New York today contains an article that begins, “The former chief judge of New York state’s highest court who suffered a spectacular fall from grace after being arrested for stalking an ex-girlfriend has received preliminary approval to have his law license reinstated.”