Washington DC Sunrise

 

 

Recent Advocacy

  • AIPLA Comments on Withdrawal of Changes to the Post Registration Response Deadlines

    August 20, 2024

    Arlington, VA. August 19, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on their recent Withdrawal of Changes to Post Registration Response Deadlines.
  • AIPLA Comments to USPTO on AI Generated Prior Art

    July 30, 2024

    Arlington, VA. July 29, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO in response to their Request for Comments Regarding the Impact of the Proliferation of Artificial Intelligence on Prior Art, the Knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Determinations of Patentability Made in View of the Foregoing (“the RFC”).
  • AIPLA Comments on Terminal Disclaimer Practice to Obviate Nonstatutory Double Patenting

    July 12, 2024

    Arlington, VA. July 9, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO in response to their Notice of Proposed Rule Making on terminal disclaimer practice to obviate nonstatutory double patenting.
  • 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.