Copyright Office
-
AIPLA Submits Comments to US Copyright Office Regarding Deferred Registration Examination Study
January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry related to the deferred registration examination study. The comments address perceived deficiencies in the current registration regime, benefits and drawbacks to offering a deferred examination option, legal or regulatory framework, filing fees, and more. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to U.S. Copyright Office Pursuant to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Related to CASE Act Regulations
November 10, 2021
On November 10, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to CASE Act regulations. Comments provided included support for requiring claimants to provide contact information in the initial notice form and support for charging filing fees for counterclaims. A staggered fee structure was again suggested, and support was provided for an initial notice in a form that includes information required by the statute and additional basic information. An opt-out mechanism for claimants who receive a counterclaim was not supported, and concern was expressed regarding implementation of a mechanism whereby a respondent who has opted out of a CCB proceeding can change their mind and opt back in.
-
AIPLA Submits Comments on Notification of Inquiry Regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations
April 26, 2021
On April 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on Notification of Inquiry regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations. As a general matter, AIPLA believes that it is important to keep the procedures as straight forward and accessible as possible to ensure this will be a new, simple, and low-cost process to resolve small copyright claims. AIPLA encourages the Copyright Claims Board to publish standardized forms and instructions. Additionally, AIPLA is in favor of providing a Second Notice through the U.S. Postal Service. For ease of delivery, AIPLA is in favor of a Designated Agent directory. Online submission of opt-out notices should be encouraged, but a paper option is also recommended. To strike an appropriate balance of discovery, AIPLA recommends that the CCB require a standardized, initial disclosure of relevant information. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,252
September 2, 2020
AIPLA's comments in response to the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office Notice and Request for Public Comment, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 -
Comments to Copyright Office on Registration Modernization
June 1, 2020
AIPLA supports and appreciates the Copyright Office’s efforts to modernize the copyright registration system. -
Recommendations on the Position of Register of Copyrights
March 23, 2020
AIPLA discusses the traits the association views as essential for the position of Register of Copyrights. -
Comments to Copyright Office Pursuant to Notification of Inquiry Regarding Online Publication
March 23, 2020
In AIPLA’s view, issues and confusion regarding “online” publication arise from the statute itself. If such issues are to be resolved, we believe that this is best done by Congress. -
Re: Comments Submitted Pursuant to “Notification of Inquiry,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52336 (Oct. 17, 2018)
October 17, 2018
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the United States Copyright Office (the “Office”) Notification of Inquiry, 83 Fed. Reg. 52336, issued October 17, 2018, concerning various proposed efforts to modernize the registration process (NOI). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Copyright Office Fees," September 21, 2018
September 21, 2018
While AIPLA recognizes the Copyright Office’s right and need to increase its fees periodically—and further recognizes that any proposed fee increase will ordinarily be met with some degree of reluctance by those incurring the increased expense—some of the Office’s proposed fee increases here raise certain questions and concerns for AIPLA members that we would like to bring to your attention. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Additional Comments Regarding Section 512 Study
February 21, 2017
Although the mechanisms of Section 512 are used now more than ever, many stakeholders believe the system can be improved substantially, and in a variety of ways that reflect the “great diversity among the categories of content creators and ISPs who comprise the Internet ecosystem.” -
AIPLA Comments on IT Modernization Plan
March 31, 2016
AIPLA supports funding the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts, including the goals reflected in the IT Plan, through a blend of fees for services and dedicated appropriated dollars. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Comments Regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,”
October 9, 2015
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) is pleased to have the opportunity to present its views on the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office request for comments regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,” 80 Fed. Reg. 32614 (June 9, 2015). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Copyright Protection for Certain Visual Works,"
July 23, 2015
AIPLA believes the ease of unauthorized copying online is a major challenge to the licensing of visual works. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notices of Inquiry Entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization; Request for Additional Comments and Announcement of Public Roundtables,”
May 21, 2014
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to submit these comments in response the above-referenced Notices of Inquiry concerning the Office’s ongoing assessment of orphan works and mass digitization. -
AIPLA Comments on Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions"
May 20, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer the following comments concerning the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry regarding “Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions” published in the March 22, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, 78 Fed. Reg. 17722. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Orphan Works and Mass Digitization"
February 4, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization” (the “NOI”), as published in the October 22, 2012 issue of the Federal Register. 77 Fed. Reg. 64555. -
AIPLA Comments on Remedies for Small Copyright Claims
January 16, 2012
AIPLA applauds efforts by Congress and the Copyright Office to ensure that copyright owners of all kinds–large and small–have the ability to effectively protect their rights in their works. -
AIPLA Comments to DMCA Rulemaking Regarding Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies
February 2, 2009
AIPLA agrees that, for certain classes of work, exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ("DMCA") anti-circumvention provisions are warranted. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry to Examine Issues Raised by “Orphan Works”
May 8, 2005
AIPLA agrees that difficulties in identifying and locating the owners of copyright in some “orphan works” present a genuine problem, and that society would benefit from greater access to such works.
Recent Advocacy
-
AIPLA Comments on Briefing Discretionary Denial Issues
June 21, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 17, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice for Briefing Discretionary Denial Issues, and Rules for 325(d) Considerations, Instituting Parallel and Serial Petitions, and Termination Due to Settlement Agreement. -
AIPLA Comments on Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
June 18, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 17, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions. -
AIPLA Comments on Resources for Examining Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-Function Claim Limitations
June 17, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 17, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on Resources for Examining Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-Function Claim Limitations.
-
Support for the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act ("IDEA") Act of 2021
March 2, 2021
AIPLA is pleased to support the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act (“IDEA”) Act of 2021. We appreciate the Committee’s continued interest in improving inventor diversity and urge you to move forward with the legislation. -
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC., v. HOLOGIC, INC., et al., Docket Nos. 20-440, amicus brief filed 3/1/2021
March 1, 2021
AIPLA's amicus brief generally supports keeping the doctrine of assignor estoppel without supporting either party’s position, but allowing for certain exceptions consistent with the findings in Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 348 (1924). The brief distinguishes assignor estoppel from the doctrine of licensee estoppel that was abolished in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969), and also outlines the profound risks and cloud of uncertainty around assigned patents that might occur should the Court abolish assignor estoppel. -
AIPLA Submits Recommendations on the Association's Intellectual Property Priorities for the Biden Administration
February 26, 2021
On February 26th, AIPLA submitted recommendations on the Association’s intellectual property priorities to the Biden Administration. AIPLA advocates for top-caliber USPTO leadership, including a variety of relevant requirements for appointees. Support was also expressed for continued adequate funding for the USPTO examination process to ensure high-quality patents. AIPLA suggested a multitude of initiatives to strengthen trademark registration, including but not limited to reinforcing existing trademark-related COVID relief measures, prioritizing effective and fair implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act, and preventing abuse of the U.S. trademark system. In relation to IP rights abroad, AIPLA supports efforts in raising the minimum standard of IP protections abroad so that they appropriately protect the investments of U.S. innovators. AIPLA also looks forward to continuing to collaborate with the National Council for Expanding American Innovation (NCEAI) and the Administration to advance diversity and inclusion initiatives. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to USPTO Regarding National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation
February 23, 2021
On February 23, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Notice regarding the National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation. AIPLA's comments include suggestions for the support of individuals, including the implementation of shared workspaces, hubs, and labs, workshops, internships, and promotion of meetings and clubs, among other ideas. Some of AIPLA's comments regarding lowering the barriers to innovation in underrepresented groups include adjusting internal culture and increasing representation in leadership. READ MORE -
Comments Submitted by AIPLA to USPTO Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study
February 22, 2021
On February 22, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 70,589 (November 5, 2020) (Docket Number: PTO–T–2020–0043). With respect to patent and trademark infringement, AIPLA believes that the record of reported cases provides support for abrogation of state immunity. With respect to trademark infringement, however, there are critical differences between those cases and patent and copyright infringement actions. READ MORE -
AIPLA Comments on Implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act
February 3, 2021
AIPLA provided feedback to the USPTO on the implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA). The feedback three aspects of the TMA: general comments, comments on flexible response times, and comments regarding ex parte expungement and ex parte reexamination proceedings. AIPLA continues to advocate for a shorter response period to Office Action refusals that include only ministerial or procedural objections. AIPLA also provided feedback on a number of subsections regarding ex parte expungement and ex parte reexamination proceedings. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to USPTO Regarding the Article of Manufacture Requirement
February 2, 2021
On February 2, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Notice regarding the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Design Patents under 35 U.S.C. 171. AIPLA indicated its support for a change in the interpretation of eligibility guidelines for computer-generated images to accept other articles of manufacture associated with the underlying programmed computer, instead of requiring that the image appear on a display screen. -
AIPLA Comments on the Request for Comments on Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines
January 7, 2021
AIPLA filed a response to the USPTO’s request for comments on proposed continuing legal education guidelines objecting to ongoing efforts by the USPTO to institute a de facto federal CLE requirement and reporting system, noting that the biennial registration requirements and reporting systems are unnecessary and may lead to an active practitioner fee. AIPLA also expressed concern that the proposal would eventually result in a mandatory CLE program requiring a costly infrastructure which would ultimately result in fees increases to support it. AIPLA expressed further concern that the rulemaking efforts may not have complied with rulemaking requirements.