No. 11-549 Title: Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Rambus Inc. Docketed: October 31, 2011 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Nos.: (2009-1299, 2009-1347) Decision Date: May 13, 2011 Rehearing Denied: July 29, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 27 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 30, 2011)
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioners: Walter Dellinger III O'Melveny & Myers LLP (202) 383-5319 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 wdellinger@omm.com Party name: Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al.
===========================================
Thanks to nxt9999nxt at IV for this info about writ of certiorari. Emphasis mine:
A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%.[18] Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket.[19] The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool. While both appeals of right and cert petitions often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the Court normally grants review only of one or two questions presented in a certiorari petition.
The Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari to resolve a "circuit split," when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled differently in similar situations. These are often called "percolating issues."
Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert., and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as "cert. worthy".[citation needed] The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. Such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times": Missouri v. Jenkins.[20] In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and that the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the region of jurisdiction of that court.
Just guessing Hynix is arguing the differing spoliation decisions between Whyte and Robinson constitutes a percolating issue worthy of the Supremes attention.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
