Federal Trade Commission
-
AIPLA Supplemental Comments on FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century: Discussion of Innovation and IP Policy
December 21, 2018
AIPLA understands antitrust enforcers sometimes refer to “innovation” as “dynamic competition.” We commend modern U.S. antitrust law for recognizing that “competition” and “innovation” are generally synonymous, and that innovation-based competition is equally as important as themore traditional static “price competition”. -
AIPLA Supplemental AIPLA Comments on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings
August 20, 2018
AIPLA encourages the FTC to be sensitive to the special role of patents and other forms of intellectual property in fostering innovation that is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, thereby enhancing competition in the U.S. and globally. -
AIPLA Comments Regarding Proposed Consent Agreement in MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, et al.
December 8, 2014
While AIPLA in general supports economically efficient licensing of patents and intellectual property assets in general, and has cautioned against overbroad reactions to new market entrants and licensing models, we have expressed appropriate concerns about indiscriminate demand letters sent in bad faith. -
AIPLA Comments to FTC and OMB Regarding Revised PAE Study
June 18, 2014
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) respectfully submits this letter in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s second Federal Register notice (“the Second Notice”), dated May 13, 2014, regarding proposed information requests to so-called “patent assertion entities” (PAEs) and other entities asserting patents in the wireless communications sector. 79 Fed. Reg. 28715. -
AIPLA Comments to FTC on Section 6(b) PAE Report
December 16, 2013
AIPLA Comments to FTC on Section 6(b) PAE Report -
AIPLA Comments to FTC/DOJ on the FTC/DOJ December 10, 2012, "Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop,"
April 5, 2013
AIPLA Comments to FTC/DOJ on the FTC/DOJ December 10, 2012, "Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop," -
AIPLA Comments on the Decision and Proposed Consent Order in the Google Proceeding
February 22, 2013
AIPLA Comments on the Decision and Proposed Consent Order in the Google Proceeding -
AIPLA Comments on the Decision and Proposed Consent Order In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No.121-0081
December 20, 2012
AIPLA Comments on the Decision and Proposed Consent Order In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No.121-0081 -
AIPLA Comments on Standards-Setting Issues In Connection with Patent Standards Workshop
June 14, 2011
AIPLA Comments on Standards-Setting Issues In Connection with Patent Standards Workshop -
AIPLA Comments on Section 5 Workshop
October 24, 2008
AIPLA Comments on Section 5 Workshop -
AIPLA Response to the Decision and Proposed Consent Order in the N-Data proceeding
April 5, 2008
AIPLA Response to the Decision and Proposed Consent Order in the N-Data proceeding
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. -
Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of "Trump Too Small" Trademark in Vidal v. Elster
June 14, 2024
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The decision contrasts with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on August 1, 2023.