Supreme Court amicus curiae brief, Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, Inc., Winter 2016: Clinic students Bill Koch and Sydney Lakin submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a cert petition on behalf of a group of innovative 3D printing companies. The brief explained to the Court that importance of the appeal extended well beyond its immediate context of fashion and was significant for the continued development and adoption of 3D printing technology as well. It urged the Court to grant cert to resolve a multi-way circuit split and articulate a uniform standard for conceptual separability under copyright law.
CommilUSA, LLC, v. Cisco System, Inc.: Students submitted, as co-counsel with Public Knowledge, an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect innovation by preserving the current intent requirement for liability for inducing copyright infringement. Commil addresses whether an alleged patent infringer’s good faith belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Clinic’s brief, on behalf of Public Knowledge, The R Street Institute, The American Library Association, The Association of Research Libraries, The Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Center for Democracy and Technology as amici, argued that a low intent requirement is irreconcilable with the current, essential standard for copyright inducement – that a party must have culpable intent to cause acts of infringement rather than merely received notice of claims of infringement. The brief expressed particular concern that the wrong standard could risk spilling over into copyright law due to the historic kinship between patent and copyright law and that substantial dangers could result, including putting product and service providers at the risk of copyright infringement liability, potentially eviscerating the vital Sony substantial non-infringing use exception to contributory infringement, and ultimately stifling innovation by impeding the advancement of technology through the threat of inducement liability.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank: Students co-authored and submitted to the US Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief. The brief, co-authored with the Computer and Communications Industry Association, urged the Court to protect innovators from harmful, overbroad patents, noting that software not tied to particular hardware was unpatentable because it represents an “abstract idea” that is ineligible for patent protection and because it constitutes impermissible “functional claiming.” The brief expressed particular concern that providing protection for the types of patents at issue would enable patent-owners to preempt all ways of implementing an idea, regardless of whether the patent-owner had actually invented them.
Courts of Appeals Briefs
Federal Circuit amicus curiae brief, National Veterans’ Legal Services Program, et al., v. United States: Amicus brief
Federal Circuit amicus curiae brief, Oracle America, Inc., v. Google, Inc., Spring 2017: Clinic students Daniel Chao, ’18 and Robert Paris, ’18 submitted an amicus brief on behalf of an extraordinary group of 76 pioneers and luminaries in the field of computer science.
Federal Circuit amicus curiae brief, Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., Spring 2017: Clinic students Jason Reinecke ’18 and Nathaniel Rubin ’18 submitted an amicus brief on behalf of nonprofit advocacy group Public Knowledge and sixteen law professors urging the Federal Circuit to reconsider en banc its doctrine of assignor estoppel.
Eleventh Circuit amicus brief, Georgia Code Commission v. Public.Resource.org, Spring 2017: Clinic students Megan Hulce and Erica Sollazzo drafted an amicus brief on behalf of a number of next-generation legal research platforms urging the 11th Circuit to rule that Public.Resource.org‘s scanning and posting of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated did not violate the copyright laws, and that the law must always be freely available to the public. On October 19, 2018, the 11th Cir. resoundingly concluded that the law”is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all.”
Federal Circuit amicus curiae brief, Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., Spring 2015: Clinic student Madeleine Laupheimer authored an amicus brief on behalf of 24 IP law professors and the American Antitrust Institute in, urging the Federal Circuit to conclude that international patent exhaustion is good policy and should not be undermined by post-sale use restrictions.
Federal Circuit amicus curiae brief, In re Tam, Spring 2015: Eric Dunn, ’16, submitted an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit on behalf of our client Public Knowledge in the en banc appeal of In re: Simon Shiao Tam, popularly known as the “Slants” trademark case. The appeal addressed whether the PTO’s denial of a trademark because it is “scandalous” or “disparaging” violates the First Amendment. The Clinic’s brief argues that the First Amendment does indeed apply to denials of trademark applications, but it further urges the Federal Circuit also to consider the First Amendment interests of the public and of third parties who might use a trademark in critical, comparative or other speech. The brief notes that considering the public interest at stake when trademarks are granted or enforced, alongside the interests of the trademark applicant, is critical to preserve the delicate balance between private and public interests at the heart of the Lanham Act.
Other Briefs
Intervention submission to the European Court of Human Rights, In re Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, Winter 2016: Clinic students Laurel Mills, ’17 and Eric Dunn, ’16, teamed up with two graduate law students from the Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands to prepare and submit an intervention (essentially an amicus brief in US parlance) to the European Court of Human Rights in the Satamedia case. The intervention, filed on behalf of the European Information Society Institute, explained to the Court the the impact its decision could have on data journalism and on technologies that help journalists use data to present information to the public, and urged the Court to appropriately balance the rights of freedom of expression and privacy so that journalists remain free to innovate using new technologies.
