There will be decisions about other legal arguments.
Brown et al. 23 – Intellectual Property Attorney and Corporate Partner at Seyfarth, J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.
Arnold E. Brown, II, Kenneth Wilton, Intellectual Property Attorney at Seyfarth, J.D. from the University of California College of the Law, Joseph Myers, Director of Innovation for the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Seyfarth, J.D. from Vanderbilt University, “The District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ Recent Significant Legal Precedent Carries Implications for Standards Organizations,” Seyfarth, 12-19-2023, https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/the-district-of-columbia-court-of-appeals-recent-significant-legal-precedent-carries-implications-for-standards-organizations.html
1. Under what conditions are technology standards that are published by standards organizations likely to be subject to the public’s right to freely access them?
In light of the ASTM decision, technology standards published by standards organizations are more likely to become accessible to the public when certain conditions are met. A crucial factor is whether the standards are of such a nature that they could form the basis for legally binding regulation. This should be a consideration when standard organizations are defining their ultimate mission, and the actions they take to ensure adoption of their standards. While the plaintiffs in ASTM all establish standards that relate to public safety, not all organizations do so. Nonetheless, the ASTM decision could be broadened in future litigation. For example, if an entity, like Public.Resource.Org, provides access to standards for nonprofit, educational purposes, it might argue that there is another basis – other than providing access to the law – for finding that access should be considered to be transformative.