True Return Systems, LLC v. MakerDAO

Background

Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) moved for permission to participate as an amicus curiae, meaning a nonparty that offers information or arguments to assist the court. CCI said its participation would help present complex patent-law issues and address the remedies requested in the case.

Reasoning

The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to allow or deny amicus participation. An amicus should help the court by offering insights that the parties cannot provide and should act as an objective, neutral, and dispassionate friend of the court.

The court found that CCI did not have a unique viewpoint unavailable from the parties. Although the case involved complex patent-law issues, the court said the parties’ counsel—not CCI—should explain those issues as they relate to the allegations. The court also found that CCI was not neutral because some of its members held MakerDAO tokens and might benefit from CCI’s participation.

Rulings

The court denied CCI’s motion to appear as an amicus curiae. It separately ordered MakerDAO to retain counsel, who had to file a notice of appearance by June 30, 2023. The clerk was directed to close the open motion at Document 38.

Additional procedural point

The opinion text includes a discussion stating that artificial entities must be represented by counsel, citing federal authorities. The order itself does not state why MakerDAO had not yet retained counsel beyond directing it to do so.