Amicus Briefs

IPPI scholars play an active role in the legal debate about intellectual property rights and the technological, commercial, and creative innovation they facilitate. IPPI scholars have written, organized, and/or joined amicus briefs in a wide variety of cases.

Below are some selected highlights (in descending chronological order).

• In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al., v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al., Supreme Court of the United States – “Brief of Former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul R. Michel and Scholars of Law and Economics as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents” (March 2026)
  • Signed by IPPI Affiliates Dr. Kristina M. L. Acri, née Lybecker, Michael Doane, Dr. Bowman Heiden, Joshua Kresh, The Honorable Paul Michel, Emily Michiko Morris, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Douglas Park, Mark F. Schultz, and Ted M. Sichelman
• In Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. et al, Supreme Court of the United States – “Amici Curiae Brief of Intellectual Property and Innovation Scholars in Support of Petitioner” (U.S. December 3, 2025) – By IPPI Senior Scholar Ted Sichelman
  • Also signed by IPPI Associate Faculty Chair, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, & Senior Scholar Emily Michiko Morris, IPPI Research Professor and Executive Director Joshua Kresh, & IPPI Faculty Chair & Senior Scholar Mark Schultz
• In Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH; West Publishing Corp v. ROSS Intelligence Inc, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – “Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Sandra Aistars, Robert Brauneis, Megan Carpenter, Kevin Casini, Jon M. Garon, Timothy T. Hsieh, Joshua Kresh, Jake Linford, Philippa Loengard, Loren E. Mulraine, Sean A. Pager, Eric Priest, Zvi Rosen, Mark F. Schultz and Bhamati Viswanathan in Support of Thomson Reuters and West Publishing” (U.S. November 26, 2025)
• In Cox Communications, Inc., et al v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al., Supreme Court of the United States – “Brief of Amicus Curiae Prof. Bruce E. Boyden in Support of Respondents“ (U.S. October 22, 2025)
• In Cox Communications, Inc., et alv. Sony Music Entertainment, et al., Supreme Court of the United States – “Brief Amicus Curiae of Intellectual Property Law Scholars in Support of Respondents“ (U.S. October 22, 2025)
• In Arbutus Biopharma Corp. and Genevant Sciences GmbH v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTX, Inc., United States Court for the District of Delaware – “Brief of 16 Former Judges, Former Officials, and Academic Scholars as Amicus Curiae in Opposition in Part to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment“ (U.S. August 22, 2025)
• In Richard Kadrey, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division – “Amicus Brief of Copyright Law Professors“ (U.S. April 2025)
• In TCL v. Access Advance, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, Intellectual Property Division – “Brief of Randall R. Rader, David J. Kappos and Mark A. Cohen“ (U.S. October 2024) [more information at China IPR]
• In Jeffrey B. Sedlik v. Katherine Von Drachenberg, Kat Von D, Inc., High Voltage Tattoo, Inc., “Brief of Tattoo Artists Ross C. Berg, Jonny Gomez, and Maxime Plesciabuchi in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and in Support of Reversal” (U.S. October 2024)
• In Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and Penguin Random House LLC v. Internet Archive, “Brief of Amici Curiae Professor and Scholars of Copyright and Intellectual Property Law in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance” (U.S. March 2024)
• In Loper Brights Enterprises, et al., v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., “Brief of the Manhattan Institute and Professors Richard Epstein, Todd Zywicki, Gus Hurwitz, and Geoffrey Manne as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners“ (U.S. July 2023)
• In CareDx, inc. et al. v. Natera, et al., “Brief of the Honorable Paul R. Michael (Ret.) and Professor John F. Duffy as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners“ (U.S. May 2023)
• In Arbutus Biopharma Corp., et al. v. Moderna, Inc., et al., “Letter Brief from Amici Curiae Law Professors, Scholars, and Former Government Officials“ (U.S. March 2, 2023)
• In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc., “Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. February 21, 2023)
• In The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., v. Lynn Goldsmith and Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd., “Brief of Amicus Curiae Prof. Zvi S. Rosen in Support of Respondents“ (U.S. August 15, 2022)
• In The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., v. Lynn Goldsmith and Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd., “Brief of Amici Curiae Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice and Intellectual-Property Professors in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. August 15, 2022)
• In Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and Penguin Random House LLC v. Internet Archive, “Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Scholars of Copyright Law in Support of Plaintiffs and in Opposition to Internet Archive“ (U.S. August 5, 2022)
• In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare Inc., etc., “Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors in Support of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Petition for Panel and En Banc Rehearing“ (U.S. August 4, 2022)
• In SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited, “Corrected Brief of Amici Curiae Scholar of Copyright Law in Upport of Plaintiff-Appellants and Reversal“ (U.S. May 28, 2021)
• In Celgene v. Peter, “Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Mar. 31, 2020)
• In Google v. Oracle, “Brief of Amici Curiae Nine Professors and Scholars of Intellectual Property Law in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. Feb. 19, 2020)
• In United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, “Brief of Trademark and Internet Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. Feb. 19, 2020)
• In Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, “Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Sean O’Connor and Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant“ (9th Cir. July 1, 2019)
• In Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services LLC, “Brief of Amici Curiae Seven Law Professors in Support of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc“ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2019)
• In Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service and United States, “Brief of Seven Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Dec. 17, 2018)
• In Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions LLC, “Brief of Amicus Curiae Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant“ (4th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018)
• In American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Neapco Drivelines LLC, “Brief of Amici Curiae 12 Patent Law Scholars in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant“ (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2018)
• In Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service and United States, “Brief of 15 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. June 25, 2018)
• In Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, “Brief of Amicus Curiae Patent Law Scholars in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and Reversal“ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2018)
• In Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland HeartLab, Inc. v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, “Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant“ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 2018)
• In RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., “Brief of Intellectual Property Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Dec. 4, 2017)
• In Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, “Brief of 27 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Aug. 31, 2017)
• In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., “Brief for Amici Curiae 11 Professors in Support of Amgen Inc., et al., as Cross-Petitioners“ (U.S. Mar. 17, 2017)
• In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, “Brief of 22 Law, Economics and Business Professors in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. Mar. 8, 2017)
• In Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America, Inc. and Sony Corporation, “Brief of Amici Curiae 13 Law Professors in Support of the Petition for Hearing En Banc“ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)
• In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., “Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. Feb. 23, 2017)
• In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., “Brief of 44 Law, Economics and Business Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent“ (U.S. Feb. 23, 2017)
• In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, “Brief of Amici Curiae Professors of Patent and Administrative Law in Support of Neither Party“ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017)
• In Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., “Brief Amicus Curiae of Intellectual Property Scholars in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant“ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2017)
• In TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., “Brief of 15 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari“ (U.S. Feb. 16, 2017)
• In Converse, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, “Brief of 11 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant“ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2017)
• In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., “Brief of Ten Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee“ (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2016)
• In Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., “Brief Amicus Curiae of Intellectual Property Scholars in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant“ (2d Cir. June 22, 2016)
• In MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, “Brief of 13 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. May 27, 2016)
• In Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., “Brief of 19 Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari“ (U.S. Apr. 20, 2016)
• In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, “Brief of Amici Curiae Eleven Law Professors in Support of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc“ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016)
• In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, “Brief of Law Professors Gregory Dolin, Irina D. Manta, Adam Mossoff, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, and Mark F. Schultz as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Feb. 29, 2016)
• In Eli Lilly and Co. v. Government of Canada, “Non-Disputing Party Amicus Curiae Submission of Intellectual Property Law Professors“ (NAFTA Ch. 11 Trib. Feb. 12, 2016)
• In Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott PLC, “Brief of Law Professors Gregory Dolin, MD, JD, Adam Mossoff, JD, and Kristen Osenga, JD, as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees’ Opposition to Appeal“ (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2015)
• In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., “Brief of Twenty-Three Law Professors in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc“ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2015)
• In Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes Inc., “Brief of the Copyright Alliance and Various Professors of Law and Copyright Experts as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment“ (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015)
• In Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., “Brief of Jon Baumgarten, Stuart Brotman, Raymond Nimmer, Mark Schultz, and John Simson as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants The Authors Guild, Et Al.“ (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2014)
• In State of New York v. Actavis PLC, “Brief of Professors Dolin, Holte, Lande, Mossoff and Osenga as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Urging Reversal“ (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2014)
• In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., “Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner“ (U.S. Nov. 18, 2013)