Department of Justice

Arlington, VA. August 10, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the European Commission on their new Standards Essential Patent (SEP) regulation proposal.

Arlington, VA. August 7, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to IP Australia on recommendations for the continued improvement of IP Australia’s design system.

Arlington, VA. August 4, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Study of the Patent Pro Bono Programs.

Arlington, VA. January 1, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed a merits-stage amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic Int’l Inc., Case. No. 21-1043.

Arlington, VA. December 22, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to China’s State Administration of Market Regulation on the Draft Amendment of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China.

Arlington, VA. December 19, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on the Draft Revised Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines.

Arlington, VA. November 7, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s (OED) Diversion Pilot Program.  

Arlington, VA. October 21, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Office’s guidance on patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. 

Arlington, VA. October 21, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) offered its response to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) regarding the USPTO’s Request for Comments on Director Review, Precedential Opinion Panel Review, and Internal Circulation and Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions.

Arlington, VA. September 16, 2022,- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Certiorari currently pending before the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148. The decision below, decided by the Ninth Circuit, involved the unauthorized use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product that purportedly parodied the Jack Daniel’s brand. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the dog toys infringed its rights under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects all “humorous” or parodic uses of others’ trademarks regardless of the nature of the underlying product, becoming the first court to apply such protections outside of Lanham Act disputes involving artistic works.

Arlington, VA. August 26, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the proposed pilot program for instituting a Final Pretrial Conference (PFC) requirement in certain TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings.  

Arlington, VA. August 4, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief  in the two PTAB cases of OpenSky Industries, LLC, Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, and Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC, which USPTO Director Vidal has taken up to address what actions the USPTO Director should take when faced with assertions of an abuse of process or conduct that otherwise thwarts, as opposed to advances, the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. AIPLA’s brief argues that the review procedures implemented in these proceedings are adequate to address the rare instances of alleged abuse of process or alleged conduct contrary to the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. 

On July 11, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) offered its initial views to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in response to the Interim Process for PTAB Director Review. AIPLA appreciates the USPTO’s focus on improving fairness to all parties and achieving greater consistency and predictability in these proceedings. 

AIPLA submitted an amicus brief in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, the case addresses the role of transformativeness in the copyright fair use analysis.  AIPLA urged three main points on the Court.  First, the importance of a flexible, adaptable fair use doctrine, explaining that at least all four enumerated statutory fair use factors should be weighed and no one factor should be prioritized over all other factors found in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Second, AIPLA advocated for a more objective “reasonable perception” standard in determining a work’s purpose and meaning; which should mitigate against the impact of self-interested testimony and judicial preferences and yield more predictable outcomes. Third, AIPLA urged the Court to expressly reject a celebrity-plagiarist exception to copyright infringement because fair use should be applied equally to all and should not turn on whether an artist or their style is famous.

 

The American Intellectual Property Law Association ("AIPLA") is pleased to submit comments to the "Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments issued on December 6, 20211 ("draft policy statement" or "draft") by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division ("DOJ"), the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") (together "the agencies").

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.

On December 16, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted a letter to Chair Richard J. Durbin and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in support of Judge Leonard P. Stark's nomination of Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The letter outlined the Association's White Paper ("Recommendations Regarding Nomination of Judges to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" dated September 2018), concluding that Judge Stark not only meets the criteria, but would bring essential experience to the Court. The letter provides an enthusiastic endorsement of Judge Stark, urging the Senate to move forward with his confirmation.

On December 16, 2021, The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) indefinitely delayed implementation of the voluntary continuing legal education (CLE) certification for registered patent practitioners and individuals granted limited recognition to practice before the USPTO in patent matters. The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) assembled a joint committee task force to ensure that the proposed rules did not disproportionately impact patent agents and other practitioners for whom CLE self-certification would be a significant burden and/or legal risk, and to ensure that practitioners were made aware of requirements for the registration statement and the CLE self-certification.

On December 1, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) submitted a joint letter to House Committee members Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, Chair Cartwright, and Ranking Member Aderholt expressing concern regarding resources appropriated to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in FY 2022. The joint letter urged the House to pass a funding measure that reflects the intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to fund the USPTO at a level equal to fee collection estimates.

On November 30, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted a letter to Chair Richard J. Durbin and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in support of Katherine (Kathi) Vidal’s nomination of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The letter outlined components of the set of criteria that AIPLA used to address the needed qualifications for an individual appointed to serve as the leader of the USPTO, concluding that Ms. Vidal possesses such qualifications.

On November 10, 2021, AIPLA, alongside nine other entities, joined on a letter to House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Ranking Member Kevin Brady regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights at the border. The letter expressed concern with the flow of counterfeit goods across the United States border, calling for stronger, more effective trade enforcement and information sharing with the private sector. The letter encouraged support for pending legislation, including key provisions which will clarify CBP’s ability to share information with rights holders.

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.