Home / Policy & Advocacy

Judicial Advocacy

In This Section

AIPLA files amicus briefs in cases that are important to its members, following a long tradition of judicial advocacy. Those briefs are accessible by clicking the relevant year of the case in the navigation column on the left side of this page.

The AIPLA Amicus Committee receives many requests from parties in litigation for the Association's amicus support, and the Committee considers and recommends to the Board of Directors the best cases for AIPLA to join and urge its positions on the cutting-edge issues of the law. Although AIPLA welcomes the views of the parties to the dispute, the AIPLA amicus positions are the product of independent consideration by the Committee and the Board of Directors, based on the law and their understanding of policy and legal questions in dispute.



Interested in Requesting AIPLA Consideration for Amicus Support?

For more information on how to request AIPLA's consideration for amicus support and to learn more about the process, please click HERE.

Learn More About the Amicus Committee Leadership


For information about the Amicus Committee and it's current leadership, please click HERE.

Click the tabs below to explore some of AIPLA's judicial advocacy:

2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017

Judicial Advocacy Archives

To see amicus briefs filed by AIPLA from previous years, please click here

Recent Advocacy

  • AIPLA Comments to USPTO on Unlocking the Full Potential of Intellectual Property by Translating More Innovation to the Marketplace

    May 14, 2024

    Arlington, VA. May 14, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the USPTO’s Request for Comment regarding Unlocking the Full Potential of Intellectual Property by Translating More Innovation to the Marketplace.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.

    May 14, 2024

    Arlington, VA. May 10, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of neither party with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a case on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The district court held that cultured host cells containing a recombinant nucleic acid molecule were not eligible for patent protection under Section 101 of the Patent Act because the individual nucleic acid sequences used in the recombinant molecule were not modified or changed from their naturally occurring state.
  • Supreme Court Affirms Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Sherman Nealy

    May 9, 2024

    On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Sherman Nealy, et al., affirming the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that, provided suit is timely filed under the discovery rule, copyright damages are recoverable for infringements occurring prior to the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations. The majority opinion is consistent with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on December 1, 2023. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here.
  • AIPLA Comments to Copyright Office on Group Registration of Two-Dimensional Artwork

    April 2, 2024

    Arlington, VA. April 1, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to group registration of two-dimensional artwork.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

    March 21, 2024

    Arlington, VA. February 29, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of neither party with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a case on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court held that the post-GATT patents-in-suit are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches and found unreasonable and inexcusable delay where 13 years had elapsed between the provisional patent application and presenting the claims at issue.