Back in November, Public Knowledge and Open Markets Institute argued to the International Trade Commission that it would violate the public interest to grant Qualcomm’s request to ban iPhones that used Intel baseband technology from the U.S. market. We wrote then,
"The granting of improper and illegal patents defeats every object and purpose of patent laws. It serves to mislead and deceive the public, and to subject them to the annoyance of unjust and invalid claims. It throws distrust and discredit upon patented property, and injures the salable value of meritorious inventions.”
Imagine a tire on a fancy Tesla, a highly technical, complex car made from myriad technological contributions and likely subject to thousands of patents. Many of those patents cover the technologies that make the car run, while others, design patents, cover only the ornamental designs. Generally, a tire's tread pattern is several straight lines that cross each other - and could be covered by a design patent. The tire itself is a small part of the final car, and the role the tread plays in the car’s value is minimal.
Yesterday, Public Knowledge filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. The brief was joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the R Street Institute.
Yesterday afternoon, Public Knowledge filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The case concerns the method of interpreting patents during inter partes review, a Patent Office administrative review proceeding for determining the validity of patents. Public Knowledge’s brief supports the position of the United States, which provides for broad interpretation of patents during that proceeding.