Calliope Legal

Inspired appellate
briefs and arguments

Box 1041
3570 Olney Laytonsville Rd
Olney, MD 20832

1+(202) 400-1003

vcard

Representative cases

United States Dep't of Justice and Facebook, Inc. v. American Civil Liberties Union Found., no. 19-15472 (9th cir.). Authored and filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of former United States magistrate judges in support of appellants. The ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Riana Pfefferkorn moved in district court to unseal certain judicial records about the DOJ's request that the court hold Facebook in contempt for not cooperating with the DOJ in a criminal investigation.  They now appeal the district court's denial of their motion.

updated: 1 year ago

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.

updated: 1 year ago

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.

updated: 1 year ago

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.

updated: 1 year ago