The Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.

By a 5-4 vote Monday, the court says the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.

The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.

"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy and the court's four liberal justices about Graham. But Roberts said he does not believe the ruling should extend to all young offenders who are locked up for crimes other than murder; he was a "no" vote on the ruling.

Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing, although roughly three dozen states allow for the possibility of such prison terms. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.

Those inmates are in Florida and seven other states — California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina — according to a Florida State University study. More than 2,000 other juveniles are serving life without parole for killing someone. Their sentences are not affected by Monday's decision.

A federal appeals court on Friday granted Dish Network Corp. a rare, full-court review of a ruling it had earlier lost to TiVo Inc., one that could have resulted in the satellite TV company disabling millions of digital video recorders.

Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington breathed new life into litigation that Dish has consistently lost to TiVo. Dish's decision to seek an "en banc" review was seen as CEO Charlie Ergen's last straw effort as damages mounted. Ergen had even believed that the appeals court was unlikely to grant it.

Shares of DVR pioneer TiVo fell by $6.52, or 37.5 percent, to $10.87 in midday trading. Dish rose by $1.22, or 5.6 percent, to $23.18.

But it's uncertain whether Dish will have eventual victory given that TiVo has prevailed in a series of other court rulings.

TiVo sued Dish in 2004 for patent infringement over a technology that stored and retrieved video on DVRs, which lets viewers pause, rewind and replay live TV. Dish lost the case on appeal, paid TiVo $104.6 million in damages and interest and was barred from using the technology.

Oprah Winfrey’s production company wants a federal judge to force a prominent Boston law firm to provide information about one of its former attorneys to bolster its case in a patent-infringement lawsuit against her book club.

The lawsuit poses serious threats to the entire publishing industry, according to Harpo Productions attorney Charles Babcock.

Winfrey’s Harpo filed a motion last week to compel Fish & Richardson to hand over documents and give a deposition regarding Scott Harris, a former patent prosecution attorney in its San Diego office.

Harpo is being sued by Illinois Computer Research, a Chicago holding company that bought Harris’ 2006 patent for Internet technology that allows readers to review digital excerpts from books prior to buying them. Harpo claims the patent is unenforceable. The case is set for a July trial in Illinois.

Harpo wants Fish to comply with a subpoena, because it was party to a similar patent lawsuit that ICR filed against Google, then a Fish client, in 2007.

ICR, which is tied to Harris, added Fish as a defendant in that lawsuit after Fish forced Harris’ resignation several days following its filing.

In court documents, Fish claimed Harris used Fish resources to build a portfolio of patents and cash in on them by selling them to parties that he knew would file infringement cases against companies that included his own law firm’s clients. The suit was settled in 2008.

Roman Polanski's request for access to sealed transcripts of testimony by a former prosecutor detailing alleged misconduct should be rejected because of the director's fugitive status, prosecutors argued Thursday in a court filing.

Polanski's attorneys have asked a judge to unseal testimony taken earlier this year by the original prosecutor handling the case, Roger Gunson. They have said it will help their efforts to fight Polanksi's extradition from Switzerland, where he remains under house arrest.

Deputy District Attorney David Walgren wrote in Thursday's filing that the request should be denied because Polanski has repeatedly refused to return to Los Angeles for sentencing.

He said allegations of misconduct in the case can and should be dealt with at Polanski's sentencing.

A hearing on Polanski's motion is scheduled for Monday afternoon.

The federal government has opposed business interests in two closely watched securities cases during Elena Kagan's time as solicitor general, although her brief tenure has overlapped with just a handful of notable business cases.

Ms. Kagan has a light record on business issues outside of her 14 months of service as solicitor general, a role in which she represented the government at the high court. She hasn't served as a judge and her professional career has largely been devoted to government service and academia.

With Ms. Kagan as solicitor general, the Obama administration has taken a friendlier approach to investor lawsuits. Ms. Kagan's office filed a legal brief supporting investors in a case that examined when shareholders could sue mutual-fund managers for allegedly charging excessive fees. Ms. Kagan argued that a lower-court ruling in the case did not provide enough of a check on potentially excessive fees.

In another case, Ms. Kagan's office argued that shareholders of Merck & Co. Inc. didn't wait too long to file lawsuits alleging the drug maker misrepresented the safety of painkiller drug Vioxx.

The Supreme Court, which decided both cases this spring, unanimously agreed with Ms. Kagan's position each time.