Law Commons^™

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 Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Kucana V. United States, Stephen I. Vladeck

Amicus Briefs

This brief argues for the fundamental separation of powers to avoid setting a dangerous precedent with regard to agency control over judicial review of administrative action.

Brief Of Former Article Iii Judges And Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Mohawk Industries V. Carpenter, Stephen I. Vladeck

Amicus Briefs

The burden on the thirteen Article III Courts of Appeals has increased significantly in recent years. Data maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts demonstrate the increasing numerical caseload of the Article III courts of appeals over the last 5, 10, and 25 year periods, even as the number of congressionally authorized judgeships has remained almost static, and the real-dollar value of judicial budgets - including salaries - has decreased.

However, the data tell only part of the story. The same period has also witnessed a subtle but more profound change in the substantive nature of some classes …

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 Respondent, Denedo V. United States, Stephen I. Vladeck

Amicus Briefs

The significant issues raised by this case include (1) the ability of courts with criminal jurisdiction to provide remedies for constitutional errors at trial; (2) the role played by Article III courts in providing collateral relief for convictions obtained in state courts, and in Article III and non-Article III federal courts; (3) the specific interaction between Article I military courts and Article III courts; and (4) the applicability of the canon of statutory interpretation disfavoring repeals of jurisdiction by implication.

Amici curiae, professors teaching the law of federal jurisdiction, criminal procedure, and post-conviction remedies, join together to provide the Court …

Brief Of Aarp, The National Legislative Association On Prescription Drug Prices, Community Catalyst, And Prescription Policy Choices, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Ims Health Inc. V. Sorrell, Sean Flynn

Amicus Briefs

This brief supports protecting the confidentiality of prescription records in the state of Vermont from commercial uses by pharmeceutical companies to market new drugs to physicians directly.

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 …