For nonprofit organizations
Calliope Legal authors amicus curiae briefs on behalf of nonprofit organizations we respect, admire, and support. We do so on a pro bono basis, at no cost to the nonprofit organization. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) is a non-party who assists the court by offering information, expertise, or insight bearing on the issues the case presents.
An effective amicus brief does not merely endorse or echo one party's points and arguments. Instead, it may introduce facts not in the trial court record. Or it may explain legal and policy ramifications of the court’s options for deciding the case. Considering diverse perspectives enriches the judicial decision-making process.
If you represent a progressive nonprofit organization and wish to submit an amicus brief in an important case on appeal, we would like to hear from you. If we can write your brief without sacrificing the quality of work we strive to provide for all our clients, and we agree that your participation as a friend of the court would be in the public interest, we can likely do so. Please feel free to reach out to us.
Knorr Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfaerzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corp. 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc). Authored and filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit on behalf of Public Patent Foundation urging that, with respect to willfulness of infringement, no adverse inference should be drawn because a defendant invokes attorney-client privilege to protect advice of counsel. Nor should an adverse inference be drawn where an accused infringer knew of the relevant patent but did not obtain independent legal advice. In a landmark ruling, the Federal Circuit agreed.
Brand X Internet Servs. v. Federal Commc'ns Comm'n, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). Authored and filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union concerning regulation of broadband internet service.
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001). Authored and filed an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in support of the position that the owner of an expired patent cannot continue to protect the subject matter of that expired patent as trade dress; the patented feature enters the public domain when the patent expires. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that a product feature that is functional cannot serve as a trademark, and a patented product feature is presumed to be functional.