“Supreme Court upends top patent court’s ‘burden of proof’ rule; The burden of proving infringement is always on a patent owner, high court says”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report.

And at “Patently-O,” Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit: Holds that Patentees Always have Burden of Proving Infringement.”

“Judges build on Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling to extend gay rights”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Justices ponder ‘straw purchasers’ gun law”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: When compromise is the problem.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Abramski v. United States, No. 12-1493.

Update: At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post titled “Justices wrestle with law key to Fast & Furious storm.”

“Supreme Court weighs restitution in child pornography case; Justices want victim to be compensated, but they don’t like the options”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh child porn restitution.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Sorting out the blame.”

“Anonymous pre-election hit piece on Horne was legal, attorneys argue”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article that begins, “A lawyer for the Democratic Attorneys General Association told the state Court of Appeals Tuesday that organizations have a constitutional right to run what amounts to anonymous ‘hit pieces’ on candidates right before the election.”

“9th Circuit’s Decision in Big Lagoon Case Spells Trouble (breakdown)”: Today at the “Turtle Talk” blog, Bryan Newland has this post about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

The substance of the blog post begins, “Judge Block’s analysis contained in the decision was so stunningly and thoroughly poor, that there is not enough space or time to address every wrong point in this post (and this is a long post).”

The majority opinion was written by a senior U.S. District Judge visiting from outside of the Ninth Circuit and joined in by a Senior Ninth Circuit Judge. The third judge on the panel, a Ninth Circuit Judge in active service, dissented. As a result, this case may have a better than ordinary chance of obtaining en banc review.

“Chancery appeals to US Supreme Court on secret panels”: Sean O’Sullivan and Maureen Milford of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware have this report.

“Online game has law nerds lining up for bragging rights”: This front page article featuring Josh Blackman appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“Court struggles with restitution for child porn”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Paroline v. United States, No. 12-8561.

Access online today’s ruling in an argued case of the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 12-1128. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Update: In news coverage, Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Medtronic pacemaker patent loss.”

Victory for the plaintiff in Lance v. Wyeth: As I noted yesterday evening, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided yesterday the appeal that I had orally argued on behalf of the plaintiff more than two years and four months ago.

Due to yesterday’s large snowstorm in the Philadelphia area, the Pa. Supreme Court’s Philadelphia filing office wasn’t able to post the majority or dissenting opinion online yesterday. Thus, I did not know whether the outcome of the case noted in the docket — affirmed in part and reversed in part — signified a full or partial victory for my client or a total defeat.

This morning, Pennsylvania’s highest court posted the opinions in the case online, consisting of the majority opinion in which four justices joined and a dissenting opinion in which two justices joined. The bottom line is that my client prevailed, making the long wait for a ruling at least somewhat more palatable.

You can access the briefs filed in the case via two earlier posts, here and here.

“Sexual Orientation Is No Basis for Jury Exclusion, a Federal Appeals Court Rules”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“41 years after Roe v. Wade, abortion foes undaunted; In annual report, National Right to Life Committee applauds antiabortion measures in states, and takes the long view on getting measures through Congress and before the Supreme Court”: Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court asked to review Delaware’s ‘secret trials’ case”: Tom Hals of Reuters has this report.

“The New Aaron Swartz Documentary at Sundance”: Tim Wu has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.

“Texas Prepares to Execute Mexican Despite Concerns That His Arrest Violated Law”: Manny Fernandez will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Disarming the White House”: Norman J. Ornstein will have this op-ed about the pending U.S. Supreme Court recess appointment case in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Justices Appear Divided On a Sweeping Challenge To Public Workers’ Unions”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court considers major change in public employee unions.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court considers striking down mandatory public union dues.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices hear case threatening public employee unions; An effort by home-care workers to opt out of union representation threatens the labor movement.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “High Court Considers Legality Of ‘Fair Share’ Union Fees.”

At Education Week’s “School Law” blog, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Weighs High-Stakes Case on Union Fees.”

At Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Supreme Court Debate: Are Public-Sector Unions Too Political?”

And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Case That Could Clobber Public-Sector Unions.”

“I’m hoping for a victory for crime victims’ rights tomorrow before the Supreme Court”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The (newly relocated) Volokh Conspiracy” about the case he will be arguing tomorrow at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Argument preview: Checking up on gun buyers.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Court: Jurors can’t be dismissed because of sexual orientation.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

“Citizens United, 4 years later”: Byron Tau of Politico.com has this report.

“Filibuster Challenge Meets Resistance in D.C. Circuit”: Todd Ruger has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

After waiting more than two years and four months, what’s one more day? The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania today decided the case that I described on September 13, 2013 — the two-year anniversary of my oral argument of the appeal — as “my oral argument toddler.”

Ordinarily, Pennsylvania’s highest court would post the decision online on the day of issuance. However, due to the big snowstorm affecting Philadelphia today, the court’s Philadelphia filing office closed at 2 p.m. today. Consequently, the opinion was not posted online today.

Here is what I currently know, thanks to the Pa. Supreme Court’s updated docket sheet in the case. The decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which was partially in favor of my client and partially in favor of the defendants, was affirmed in part and reversed in part. That disposition, however, can describe a large range of possible outcomes in the case. I also know that Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote the majority opinion, in which Justices Max Baer, Debra McCloskey Todd, and Seamus P. McCaffery joined. Finally, I know that Justice J. Michael Eakin issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille joined.

The wait for a decision has ended. And the wait to learn the precise outcome of the case and what the court’s decision actually says has begun, starting midday today.

“‘Raging Bull’ on the ropes in copyright challenge; Justices’ decision will hinge on whether the daughter of a screenwriter waited too long to file her case”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Court Oks Excessive Credit Card Fees, Reluctantly”: At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Argument preview: Paying a price for child porn.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justices weigh anonymous tips in traffic stops”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Pushing the hypotheticals.”

Update: In other coverage, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “In anonymous tips case, Supreme Court doesn’t tip its hand.”

“The Volokh Conspiracy joins The Washington Post”: You can access the press release at this link.

You can view the WaPo version of the VC by clicking here.

Update: An explanatory post from Eugene Volokh is titled “In Brazil, you can always find the Amazon — in America, the Amazon finds you.”

Contrary to my initial comment, above, there is no WaPo version of the VC — rather, only the WaPo version will exist going forward. In addition, the VC after six months will exist “behind the Post’s rather permeable paywall.”

“U.S. justices referee ‘Raging Bull’ copyright fight”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., No. 12-1315.

Update: In other coverage, Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Justices hear appeal over ‘Raging Bull.’”

“State victories create dilemma for abortion foes”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” opts to become more difficult to access. Mike Scarcella has the announcement at this link.

Heading in the opposite direction, as previously reported, WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” recently decided to make itself much more accessible by entirely dropping its paywall.

Lest anyone be concerned, the “How Appealing” blog’s agreement with law.com ensures that this blog will remain freely accessible to all who have internet access.

“Va. Supreme Court declines to rehear Virginia Tech shooting case; The ruling effectively ends the case in the state court system”: The Roanoke Times has this news update.

“Argument recap: Public employee unionism under fire.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court debates union fees for nonunion workers.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Union Fees Debated in Supreme Court Case Over Labor Power.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681.

“This appeal’s central question is whether equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in jury selection.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered “yes” in a decision issued today.

Update: In early news coverage, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has a report headlined “Gay bias in jury selection: federal appeals court forbids barring gays and lesbians from jury service.”

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Court says prospective jurors can’t be removed because they are gay.”

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “Exclusion of gay juror forces new U.S. trial between GSK, Abbott.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Gay juror was taken off panel improperly.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that “Federal Appeals Court Says Jurors Can’t Be Excluded Because They Are Gay.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Sexual Orientation No Basis to Block Jurors.”