Amicus Brief by The Committee For Justice Filed in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Amicus Brief by The Committee For Justice Filed in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
22-246
MATTHEW J. DOWD
Counsel of Record
ROBERT J. SCHEFFEL
DOWD SCHEFFEL PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 559-9175
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................ 2
ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 3
I. As Property Rights Established by the
Constitution, Patents and Copyrights Enable
Innovators to Compete and Reshape Markets ......... 3
A. The Intellectual Property Clause Embodies
the Founding-Era Understanding of Patent
and Copyright Rights ............................................. 4
B. Modern Innovation Requires Reliable
Intellectual Property Rights ................................. 6
II. The Federal Circuit’s Erroneous Analysis and
Application of 28 U.S.C. § 455 Raise Questions
of Exceptional Importance .......................................... 9
A. Section 455 Provides a Reasoned Safeguard
to Ensure that Speedy and Inexpensive
Justice is Accomplished ......................................... 9
B. The Federal Circuit’s § 455 Analysis Creates
Conflicts with Decisions of This Court and
Other Courts of Appeals ...................................... 11
III. This Case Presents an Ideal Vehicle to Clarify
the Law and Correct an Injustice Suffered by
an American Innovator .............................................. 14
A. Centripetal Networks Is a Verified Success
Story of the American Intellectual Property
System ................................................................... 14
B. The Outcome Here Will Disproportionately
Harm Smaller Innovators and Will Create a
Free Pass for Willful Infringers ......................... 16
CONCLUSION .................................................................. 19
(i)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Adams v. Burke.,
84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 453 (1873)............................................. 5
Arnett v. Kennedy,
416 U.S. 134 (1974) ............................................................ 9
Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. Franksu Enterprise
Corp.,
78 F.3d 550 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................... 13
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
489 U.S. 141 (1989) ............................................................ 7
Bridges v. California,
314 U.S. 252 (1941) .......................................................... 10
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.,
556 U.S. 868 (2009) .......................................................... 10
Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
447 U.S. 303 (1980) ............................................................ 7
Eldred v. Ashcroft.,
537 U.S. 186 (2003) ........................................................ 4, 5
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Ka-
bushiki Co..,
535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................................................ 7
Goldstein v. California,
412 U.S. 546 (1973) ............................................................ 7
Horne v. Department of Agriculture,
135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) ........................................................ 8
In re Certain Underwriter,
294 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2002) ............................................. 13
(ii)
In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases
Copyright Litigation,
509 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................................... 9
James v. Campbell.,
104 U.S. 356 (1881) ............................................................ 8
Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Maxus Energy Corp.,
925 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................................. 10
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847 (1988) .............................................. 12, 13, 18
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White,
536 U.S. 765 (2002) .......................................................... 10
United States v. Atwood,
941 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2019) ........................................... 12
United States v. Cerceda,
172 F.3d 806 (11th Cir. 1999) ......................................... 13
United States v. Williams,
949 F.3d 1056 (7th Cir. 2020) ................................... 10, 11
Wheaton v. Peters,
33 U.S. 591 (1834) .............................................................. 4
Withrow v. Larkin,
421 U.S. 35 (1975) ............................................................ 10
(iii)
Rules
Fed. R. Civ P. 1................................................................... 10
Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 ..................................................................... 1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 ..................................................................... 1
Other Authorities
5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson
(Washington ed. 1871)....................................................... 7
Adam Mossoff,
Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law,
22 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 321 (2009) ................................ 5
The Federalist No. 43 (Modern Library ed.
2001) .................................................................................... 5
H.R. Rep. No. 93-1453, as reprinted in
1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6351 .................................................... 9
Profile Cisco Systems, Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/companies/cisco-sys-
tems/ ................................................................................. 16
President George Washington, First Annual Ad-
dress to Congress (Jan. 8, 1790) ...................................... 4
Ryan T. Holte, The Misinterpretation of eBay v.
MercExchange and Why: An Analysis of the
Case History, Precedent, and Parties,
18 Chapman L. Rev. 677 (2015) ..................................... 18
(iv)
1
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, counsel of record for all
parties received notice at least 10 days prior to the due date of
Amici curiae’s intent to file this brief. Respondent provided written
consent to the filing of this brief through electronic mail, and
Petitioner consented through their letter of blanket consent filed
with the Court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, Amici curiae
state that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in
part and that no entity or person, aside from amici curiae, its
members, and its counsel, made any monetary contribution toward
the preparation or submission of this brief.
(1)
2
2
See Transcript, January 8, 1790: First Annual Message to
Congress Transcript, University of Virginia, Miller Center,
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-
speeches/january-8-1790-first-annual-message-congress.
5
Williams, 949 F.3d 1056, 1063 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Not every
violation of § 455(a) warrants a drastic remedy, like a new
trial.”).
Such considerations are particularly important when
adjudicating property rights, rooted in the Constitution
such as patent rights. Vacating a complete adjudication
of patent claims, which resulted here in a finding of willful
infringement and damages of over a billion dollars, is an
extraordinarily drastic result for what appears to be one
of the slightest of violations of § 455.
B. The Federal Circuit’s § 455 Analysis Creates
Conflicts with Decisions of This Court and
Other Courts of Appeals
The Federal Circuit’s decision warrants review and
this Court’s clarification on two issues. The first is
whether a blind trust satisfies the statutory requirement
of § 455(f). The second is whether the appeals court’s
harmless-error analysis comports with this Court’s
precedent. Both issues are of exceptional importance.
On the first issue, this Court has not answered the
question of whether a “blind trust” satisfies the statutory
requirement to “divest.” See 28 U.S.C. § 455(f). As
Petitioner explains, there are good reasons to hold that
the statute permits divestiture via a blind trust,
particularly in this case. See Pet. 16. A blind trust divests
an individual of any power of control, distribution, or
disposition over the property contained in the trust. Such
a position would seem to satisfy the objective of the
statute. And the late Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. in
the present case used the blind trust in a manner that
appeared to moot any question of impartiality.
Specifically, the controlling language of § 455(f)
requires that a judge, after an unexpected discovery of
stock ownership by a family member late in the
adjudication of a case, “divests himself or herself of the
12
Respectfully submitted.
MATTHEW J. DOWD
Counsel of Record
ROBERT J. SCHEFFEL
DOWD SCHEFFEL PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW
Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 559-9175
[email protected]
OCTOBER 2022