Readers, there were two new developments in the Changzhou SinoType case yesterday. First, the Chinese government sent a letter to the Department of Justice expressing its objections to the California court’s decision permitting service by postal channels in China in a case where the Hague Service Convention applied. The letter was dated Sunday. I’d like to give a special shout-out to Rick Simpson of Wiley, who was counsel to the amici curiae and who was willing to handle the mechanics of getting my supplemental brief to the Supreme Court yesterday; I was out of commission for Yom Kippur. Thanks, Rick!

Second, two excellent Chinese scholars, friend-of-Letters-Blogatory Jie (Jeanne) Huang (University of Sydney) and Manjiao Chi (UIBE), filed a second amicus brief in support of the petition. The new amicus brief is notable because it explains the Chinese position with reference to Chinese law and Chinese sources that I would have been entirely unqualified to address in the petition itself.

The case is scheduled to be discussed at today’s conference of the justices. This is the “long conference.” The statistical evidence about long conference grants for cases distributed in September is a bit unclear to me. Anyway, because Rockefeller waived its opposition, there is no real chance of a grant tomorrow—my hope is that the court will call for a response from Rockefeller and, I hope, for the views of the Solicitor General, particularly in light of the Chinese government’s late intervention.