No. 19-591
Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al.
Response Waived
Tags: appellate-procedure due-process equal-protection judicial-transparency patent reasoned-opinions rule-of-law summary-affirmation summary-affirmations
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess FirstAmendment Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Can a court ever choose to write reasoned opinions for one class of losing appellants and not another under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and if so, how disparate can the issuance rates of reasoned opinions, versus summary affirmations, be for different classes of appellants?
2. Is the Public entitled to reasoned opinions when the absence of those opinions diminishes the Public's right of access to the courts and ultimately results in the erosion of the Rule of Law?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a court ever choose to write reasoned opinions for one class of losing appellants and not another under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent Andrei Iancu to respond filed.
2019-11-21
Waiver of right of respondent Apple Inc. to respond filed.
2019-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Andrei Iancu
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Apple Inc.
John Andrew Dragseth — Fish and Richardson P.C., Respondent
Chestnut Hill Sound Inc.
Alexis Faye Mosser — Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C., Petitioner