Law Commons^™

Brief For The Coalition Against Patent Abuse As Amicus Curiae In Support No Party, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Perhaps unexpectedly, a case on the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has major significance to the pressing policy crisis of drug prices in the United States. Erroneously issued patents monopolize medical therapies, making them unaffordable or inaccessible to numerous Americans. The inter partes review proceedings that the Board conducts have repeatedly and successfully overcome such patents, enabling competition and dramatically lowering prices. This Court should ensure the continued viability of the Board and of inter partes review, by preserving the Board’s objectivity and independence from executive branch political influence.

Brief Fof The R Street Institutte, Public Knowledge, And The Niskanen Center As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Charles Duan, Meredith F. Rose

Amicus Briefs

The Java SE declarations of this case are simply a language of commands. As an application programming interface, or API, they exhibit features common to any language: a structured vocabulary and grammatical syntaxes, which a computer system understands as instructions to perform predefined tasks. What Oracle accuses as infringement is “reimplementation,” namely the building of a system, in this case Google’s Android platform, that repurposes the same words and syntaxes of the Java declarations.

Brief Of The R Street Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

It is a common but misleading premise of cases such as this one that the disappointed patent applicant has two options for judicial review: a 35 U.S.C. § 145 district court action and an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 141. The applicant also has a non-judicial option: administrative remedies within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

These administrative remedies add an important dimension to this case. The Court of Appeals adopted what it conceded was an atextual construction of § 145 expense recovery provision in order to ensure that § 145 actions were not cost-prohibitive to “small businesses and individual …

Brief For The R Street Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

The government and its agencies should be treated as a “person” that may petition to institute post-issuance review proceedings under the America Invents Act, for two reasons. First, permitting the government to seek review of patents under these proceedings best realizes the intent of Congress to make those proceedings widely available. Second, compared to the government’s alternative option for administratively challenging patents, AIA post-issuance review better serves important norms of procedure and governance, including transparency, due process, and separation of functions.

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief Of Public Knowledge, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Engine Advocacy, And The R Street Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Where Congress places conditions upon the patent grant in furtherance of the public interest in individual liberty, Congress acts at the apex of its powers under the Constitution. Inter partes review is a legislative condition on the patent grant, designed for an innovative modern world, specifically crafted to dispose of erroneously issued patents that burden the public. It is the traditional place of Congress to make these balanced political judgments, and Article III poses no barrier to Congress executing its Article I obligation to protect the public by limiting patents.

Brief Of Eleven Law Professors And Aarp As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Bilski V. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (No. 08-964), Joshua Sarnoff, Lori Andrews, Andrew Chin, Ralph Clifford, Christine Farley, Sean Flynn, Debra Greenfield, Peter Jaszi, Charles Mcmanis, Lateef Mtima, Malla Pollack

Amicus Briefs

This is the brief filed by Joshua Sarnoff and Barbara Jones on behalf of various law professors and AARP in the Bilski v. Kappos case, discussing constitutional limits to the Patent power.

Brief Of American Medical Association Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Association For Molecular Pathology V. U.S. Patent And Trademark Office, Joshua Sarnoff

Amicus Briefs

Amici seek to provide this Court with insight into the adverse effects on medical care and innovation that gene patents cause. These adverse effects could and should have been avoided, because genetic sequence and correlation patents – including all of the Myriad patents at issue – are not patentable inventions. These patents should never have been granted, and are not needed to create incentives for innovation.

The Myriad patents on breast cancer genes, mutations, and correlations between mutations and disease have a direct, severe, and adverse impact on members of the Amici medical organizations and all humanity. Myriad’s announced intention …

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of The Petitioners, Harjo V. Pro-Football Inc., Victoria Phillips, Christine Haight Farley

Amicus Briefs

Amici are scholars at U.S. law schools whose research and teaching focus is intellectual property law, federal Indian law and constitutional law. Amici are concerned that the Court of Appeals decision below is inconsistent with the well settled law that laches does not apply to trademark cancellation claims, including those based on disparagement, because of the strong public interest in being free from the harms that disparagement causes.

These harms, which include damaging stereotyping and stigmatization, are serious and deserve protection no matter what private harm may be caused by delay to the trademark registrant. Further, precluding laches in these …

Mgm V. Grokster, Brief Amici Curiae Of The Computer & Communications Industry Association And Internet Archive, In Opposition To The Writ Of Certiorari, To The United States Supreme Court, Laura Quilter, Peter Jaszi

Amicus Briefs

Amicus on behalf of the Internet Archive and the CCIA, requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to deny the petition for certiorari in the MGM v. Grokster case.