CCL, on behalf of respondent Theresa Huck, recently opposed the filing of an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in Pliva, Inc. v. Huck. The amicus brief was submitted on behalf of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) by the law firm of Ulmer & Berne. Although CCL normally, as a matter of professional courtesy, does not object to reasonable requests to appear as amicus curiae, CCL opposed this request because the law firm that filed the amicus brief also represents the petitioner, Pliva, Inc., in this and related cases. CCL therefore believes that the submission of this amicus brief violates Supreme Court rule 37.6, which requires amici to certify whether counsel for a party authored the amicus brief in whole or in part. GPhA asserted in its proposed brief that “no counsel for a party in this Court wrote this brief in whole or in part.” The “in this Court” language departed from the usual Rule 37.6 language. CCL contends that this representation was false, given Ulmer & Berne’s representation of the petitioner, and therefore opposed submission of the amicus brief in support of the petition.