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.