Executive Advocacy
AIPLA regularly provides comments to different agencies within the U.S. government, as well as to other domestic organizations, on matters impacting intellectual property laws and protection.
Internal Revenue Service
National Academy of Sciences
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Standards and Technology
US Customs and Border Protection
US International Trade Commission
US Securities and Exchange Commission
US Trade Representative
Other
- AIPLA Testimony on proposed revisions to 26 C.F.R. Parts 1 and 301, delivered February 21, 2008 before the Internal Revenue Service. (PDF)
- AIPLA Response to the October 2007 rule proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on “Patented Transactions,”submitted December 26, 2007 (3 pages - 37K* - Click PDF to view the Response; click HERE to view the IRS proposed rule (10/22/2007)
- AIPLA Response to the National Research Council's Report on Reaping The Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research (31 pages –197K* Click HEREto view the Response; For information on the Report: Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health, please visit The National Academies Press by clicking HERE.)
- AIPLA Response to the National Academies Report entitled "A Patent System for the 21st Century" (49 pages–243K* Click PDF to view the Response; Click PDF to view the Report.)
- Comments on Draft Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services: "Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests" 74(52) Federal Register 11730 (March 19, 2009) ( PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to NIST on March-In Rights Guidance, February 5, 2024 (PDF)
- AIPLA Feedback to NIST Draft Green Paper on ROI Initiative February 8, 2019 (PDF)
- AIPLA Response NIST Bayh-Dole Regulation, Dec 9, 2016 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standards) on Standardization Feedback for Sub-Committee on Standards, February 18, 2011 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Customs 21st Century Framework, February 2, 2019 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Proposed Rulemaking, "Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border," June 25, 2012 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the International Trade Commission’s Investigation of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), May 3, 2023 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Commission's Rules of General Application, Adjudication and Enforcement, November 23, 2015 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Commission FY2015 Budget and Space for Section 337 Investigations, May 19, 2014 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments: "Interagency Review of Exclusion Order Enforcement Process," July 19, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules of General Application, Adjudication, and Enforcement,” December 4, 2012 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules of General Application, Adjudication, and Enforcement,” September 17, 2012 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Proposed Revisions to Rules of Practice and Procedure and Proposed Handbook on Filing Procedures, August 5, 2011 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on proposed revisions to 19 C.F.R. Sections 201 and 210, filed March 19, 2008 at the US International Trade Commission (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to Concept Release on Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K, August 9, 2016 (PDF)
- Letter Submitted to the Office of the US Trade Representative Supporting US Opposition to TRIPS Waiver Proposal, March 30, 2021 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Relating to Civil or Commercial Matters, March 19, 2018 (PDF)
- AIPLA and PhRMA Comments on Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Relating to Civil or Commercial Matters Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International Law, July 19, 2017 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ("ACTA" or "Agreement") and the ongoing negotiations between the possible Member States, submitted September 27, 2010. (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Proposed Amendment and Correction of Trademark Registrations published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003 (Comments submitted February 2, 2004) (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the "Work Program set forth in the draft Ministerial Declaration submitted by the WTO General Council and WTO Director-General for consideration at the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference scheduled for Doha, Qatar next month" (October 11, 2001) (PDF)
AIPLA Files Comments to Health and Human Services (HHS) on the World Health Organization's (WHO) Proposed Pandemic Treaty
- AIPLA Comments to HHS on WHO Pandemic Treaty, January 31, 2024 (PDF)
AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order
- AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order, August 26, 2022 (PDF)
AIPLA Comments to ACUS on Patent Small Claims Court
- AIPLA Comments on a Potential Small Claims Patent Court or Small Claims Patent Proceeding and its Impacts, July 5, 2022 (PDF)
Regarding the Position of the USPTO Director
- AIPLA Comments to the Department of Commerce Regarding the Position of USPTO Director, June 28, 2017 (PDF)
- AIPLA White Paper Concerning the Recommended Qualifications for the Next Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, November 2013 (PDF)
Office of the Presidential Transition
- AIPLA Letter to Biden Administration, February 26, 2021 (PDF)
- AIPLA Letter to President-Elect Donald Trump, January 4, 2017 (PDF)
U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, December 3, 2018 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, October 30, 2015 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments: "Interagency Review of Exclusion Order Enforcement Process," July 19, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to OMB Regarding Negative Impact of Sequestration on USPTO Funding and Operations, May 21, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments for "Trade Secret Theft Strategy Legislative Review," April 22, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, August 10, 2012 (PDF)
The Sedona Conference
- AIPLA Comments on the Sedona Conference Report on the Markman Process, submitted February 2, 2007 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Revised April 2005 Public Comment Draft" of The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases (the "Draft Guidelines"). Filed May 14, 2006. (PDF)
- Letter expressing initial concerns of AIPLA on the Revised April 2005 Public Comment Draft" of The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases (the "Draft Guidelines"). Filed March 10, 2006. (PDF)
Miscellaneous
- AIPLA Joint Comments to Mayor Eric Garcetti in Support of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, March 9, 2018 (PDF)
In This Section
Recent Advocacy
Written February 26, 2025
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. The opinion is in line with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on September 6, 2024. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here.
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., a trademark damages case that examines how corporate separateness principles apply to disgorgement remedies under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)). The case arises from a $43 million disgorgement award against Dewberry Group (DG) for trademark infringement, which included profits earned by DG’s legally separate corporate affiliates. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) gives courts discretion to increase the amount of an award of profits to a sum that the court finds to be just, and the District Court held that the profits of these legally separate corporate affiliates should be included in the award to account for the full amount that DG profited from its infringement. The Fourth Circuit upheld the award, prompting DG to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The dispute dates to 2006, when Virginia-based Dewberry Engineers first sued Georgia-based Dewberry Group over the use of the "Dewberry" name, leading to a settlement in 2007. Tensions resurfaced in 2017 when DG rebranded and introduced sub-brands like Dewberry Living and Studio Dewberry, triggering a new lawsuit in 2020. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of Dewberry Engineers, awarding it DG’s profits, a decision affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in 2023. DG argues that the District Court abused its discretion by including profits earned by legally separate entities in the disgorgement award under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). DG also warns of broader consequences if corporate distinctions are disregarded.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, holding that under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) of the Lanham Act, “A prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is often entitled to an award of the defendant’s profits…In making such an award, the District Court in this case totaled the profits of the named corporate defendant with those of separately incorporated affiliates not parties to the suit.” The decision concluded that the lower court erred in doing so, noting that “under the pertinent statutory provision, the court could award only profits properly ascribable to the defendant itself.” The Court emphasized that the term "defendant" refers specifically to the party against whom relief is sought—in this case, Dewberry Group. Since Dewberry Engineers did not name Dewberry Group's affiliates as defendants, their profits could not be included in the damages award.
The Court also underscored fundamental corporate law principles, affirming that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal persons whose profits cannot be attributed to another company absent a recognized exception such as veil-piercing, which was not alleged here. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the "just-sum" provision of § 1117(a) justified including the affiliates' profits. The Court reasoned that the lower courts did not include any “just sum” analysis in their decisions. Rather the lower courts simply added up the full profits of all of the affiliates. The Court expressly noted that whether or how the “just sum” provision of § 1117(a) could have been used was not before it. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling, determining that the nearly $43 million award improperly included non-defendant profits, noting that “Dewberry Group is the sole defendant here, and under that language only its own profits are recoverable.”
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice Sotomayor concurred fully with the Court’s opinion but wrote separately to emphasize that corporate separateness should not obscure economic realities when calculating a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act. She pointed out that while Dewberry Group itself reported no profits, its affiliates made substantial earnings from the trademark infringement. Sotomayor warned that corporate formalities should not enable defendants to evade liability through strategic accounting maneuvers, such as shifting revenues to affiliates or receiving indirect compensation. She cited tax law precedents allowing courts to recognize anticipatory assignment schemes and argued that similar principles could guide Lanham Act profit calculations.