The 9th Circuit partially revived a lawsuit pitting a Seattle-area school district's non-discrimination policy against students' right to form a Bible club that requires members to declare their Christian faith.

A three-judge panel upheld in August 2007 Kentridge High School's decision to ban Truth, a proposed extracurricular club that required members to profess "a belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ." These criteria inherently exclude non-Christians in violation of the non-discrimination policy, the judges concluded.

The court withdrew its opinion, replacing it with one that still allowed Kent School District to refuse to recognize discriminatory clubs, but took issue with waivers given to groups such as the Men's Honor Club and the Girl's Honor Club, which exclude members based on gender.

"There is no evidence in the record as to why these groups were allowed apparent waivers from the district's non-discrimination policy," Judge Wallace wrote. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the school chose to extend waivers to some student groups, but not theirs, based on religion or the religious content of their speech.

A federal appeals court has turned down Qualcomm Inc.'s request to hold off imposition of an injunction against sales of some of the company's cellphone chips, while Qualcomm pursues an appeal of a patent suit won by rival Broadcom Corp.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without providing details, ruled Tuesday that Qualcomm had not met its burden of proof to win a stay pending appeal of the injunction, which was ordered by federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif. on December 31.

The appeals court also denied a motion for Sprint Nextel Corp. to intervene in the case. The company is among the cellphone carriers potentially affected by the injunction.

A federal jury concluded last year that Qualcomm infringed three Broadcom patents, covering features that include digital-video technology, technology for allowing cellphones to use two or more networks simultaneously as well as a push-to-talk feature for instant communications between phones.

The subsequent injunction by U.S. District Judge James Selna had an immediate effect on U.S. sales of some handsets using Qualcomm chips. But most of the affected products fall under a sunset provision so that the company can continue selling them through January 2009 if it pays royalties to Broadcom. Qualcomm has been working on technical changes to some products to avoid infringing the Broadcom patents.

A Qualcomm spokeswoman, in a prepared statement, said: "Although our motion for a stay was denied, the Federal Circuit has recognized the need for speedy resolution of the many issues raised by the verdict and remedy in this case, and has therefore granted Qualcomm's motion for an expedited schedule for briefings and oral argument."

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped into one of the biggest free speech fights of the past three decades, but it's unclear how far the court will go when it rules on just how much trouble broadcasters can get into for a slip of the tongue.

On Monday, the court agreed to hear arguments over the Federal Communications Commission's policy regarding so-called "fleeting expletives" in a closely watched case that will decide whether the government can fine or revoke a broadcaster's license because someone says a bad word. The case will be argued late this year.

Both News Corp., the Fox Broadcasting parent that wanted its victory in a lower court to stand, and the FCC, which pushed the Bush administration to appeal the case, applauded the justices' decision.

"The commission, Congress and most importantly parents understand that protecting our children is our greatest responsibility," FCC chairman Kevin Martin said.

Solicitor general Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top lawyer, urged the court to take the case, arguing that the appeals court decision had placed "the commission in an untenable position," powerless to stop the airing of expletives even when children are watching.

Fox said the move would "give us the opportunity to argue that the FCC's expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today's diverse media marketplace, where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children's television viewing."

The case surrounds two incidents in which celebrities used profanity during the Billboard Music Awards. In 2002, Cher told the audience: "People have been telling me I'm on the way out every year? So f--- 'em." The next year, Nicole Richie said: "Have you ever tried to get cow s--- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f---ing simple."

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether prosecutors can use crime lab reports as evidence without having the forensic analyst who prepared them testify at trial.

The reliability of crime labs has been questioned in several states and at the federal level in recent years.

State and federal courts have come to different conclusions about whether recent Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutional right of a defendant to confront his accusers extend to lab reports that are used in many drug and other cases.

The case the justices accepted, and will consider in the fall, comes from Massachusetts. Luis Melendez-Diaz was convicted of trafficking in cocaine partly on the basis of a crime lab analysis that confirmed that cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car in which Melendez-Diaz was riding.

Rather than accept the report, however, Melendez-Diaz objected that he should be allowed to question the person who prepared it about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and a host of other issues.

CNet Networks Inc. said Monday that it will appeal a lower court's decision on bylaw provisions to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Last week the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that CNet's bylaws do not give it the ability to prevent a group of dissident shareholders led by an affiliate of hedge fund Jana Partners LLC from nominating directors to the company's board or proposing an increase to the board's size.

The court's decision "incorrectly calls into question the bylaws of a large number of companies with the same or similar bylaw provisions," CNet said in a release. The company said its stockholder-approved bylaws are "fully applicable" to the hedge fund.

A "costly and disruptive proxy contest" is not in the best interest of stockholders, and Jana should not be able to seek control of CNet without paying a premium, the company said.

In a letter to CNet Chief Executive Neil Ashe issued earlier Monday, Jana managing partner Barry Rosenstein questioned whether an appeal would benefit shareholders. "We believe it is time for fundamental strategic and operational change at CNet, and that the nominees we have proposed... have the collective experience and expertise to successfully implement this change," he wrote.

Jana had about a 10 percent stake in CNET as of Dec. 31.

A federal Appeals Court has upheld a nearly $3.3 million verdict obtained by a Valley law firm against another firm from Texas for unpaid legal fees.

In their unanimous ruling, the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by the attorney for John M. O'Quinn & Associates that the legal fees being charged by Brown & Bain were not reasonable. Neil McCabe said that put the Phoenix law firm in violation of ethical rules adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court.

But appellate Judge John Noonan, writing for the panel, said the O'Quinn firm had in fact agreed to pay Brown & Bain a certain amount once the case settled.

Potentially more significant for attorneys, the appellate judges said Ethical Rule 1.5, which bars fees that are "unreasonable," applies only to the dealings that lawyers have with their clients. It does not regulate what one law firm charges another.

The case involves a lawsuit filed by about 900 property owners in the Phoenix area who filed suit against Motorola contending that toxic chemicals from its plant caused environmental damage. The deal the property owners had was the O'Quinn law firm would get 40 percent of any recovery plus the cost of litigation.