Arguing Against Immunity
- IPR2016-01127 117 – Amicus Curiae Brief of The BSA _ The Software Alliance (should be no immunity when patent ownership by tribe is based upon “mere happenstance” or a “calculated tactical ploy”).
- IPR2016-01127 118 – Amicus Curiae Brief of James R. Major (the assignment-license here is illusory because Allergan continues to exert full control).
- IPR2016-01127 105 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (IPR is a “public-interest administrative proceeding”, not a private litigation).
- IPR2016-01127 108 – Amicus Curiae Brief of Deva Holding A.S. (in the present case, Allergan has argued in court (where it is enforcing the patents) that the change in ownership has no impact on litigation)
- IPR2016-01127 107 – Amicus Curiae Brief of Askeladden LLC (ownership is substantially irrelevant since PTO can continue with IPR without owner’s consent or participation); see also IPR2016-01127 109 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the High Tech Inventors Alliance; IPR2016-01127 116 – Amicus Curiae Brief of The Association for Accessible Medicines (as an en rem proceeding, ownership doesn’t impact)
- IPR2016-01127 112 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the SIIA (no problem here since patents are not private property)
Arguing for Immunity
- IPR2016-01127 106 – Amicus Curiae Brief of Scholars, including Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe, Joseph William Singer and William N. Eskridge (a prima facie showing of tribal sovereign immunity should be sufficient to dismiss the IPR).
- IPR2016-01127 104 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the Oglala Siux Tribe (“Patent-holding tribes, like state universities, should be allowed to assert sovereign immunity to bar patent challenges.”).
- IPR2016-01127 110 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the Seneca Nation (third party representation – here Allergan representing the tribe’s interests – is not sufficient protection for the tribal owner)
- IPR2016-01127 111 – Amicus Curiae Brief of the NAIPEC (patent licensing agreements provide substantial benefit to Native American tribes)
- IPR2016-01127 113 – Amicus Curiae Brief of U.S. Inventor, LLC (the PTAB has no power to limit tribal immunity)
- IPR2016-01127 114 – Amicus Curiae Brief of The National Congress of American Indians et al. (Federal, State, Tribal, and Foreign Sovereign immunity all share the same common law origin and should have a common interpretation)
- IPR2016-01127 115 – Amicus Curiae Brief of Luis Ortiz and Kermit Lopez (PTAB has no authority to regulate in this area)