-
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Post-Grant Strategies for Correcting and Challenging Patent Claims
March 4, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM | 1.5 CLE Credits
This webinar will provide a summary of post-grant procedures and describe when, why, and how each procedure is useful (or not) to patent owners and third-party challengers.
-
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Post-Grant Strategies for Correcting and Challenging Patent Claims
March 4, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM | 1.5 CLE Credits
This webinar will provide a summary of post-grant procedures and describe when, why, and how each procedure is useful (or not) to patent owners and third-party challengers.
-
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Post-Grant Strategies for Correcting and Challenging Patent Claims
March 4, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM | 1.5 CLE Credits
This webinar will provide a summary of post-grant procedures and describe when, why, and how each procedure is useful (or not) to patent owners and third-party challengers.
News
-
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 to USPTO Regarding Request for Information to Assist Preparation of Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence Study
October 15, 2021
On October 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a comment letter to the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) following the Office’s request for information to assist in preparation of the Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence Study. In its comments, AIPLA addressed how the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the U.S. affects patent protection in this country as compared to other jurisdictions (including instances of denial of patent protection in the U.S.), its impact on business strategies, the U.S. economy and the public as a whole. It was noted that, since 2012, Section 101 has been the most important issue facing AIPLA members and IP practitioners as they try to advise clients on how to best invest their limited resources. IP practitioners have been unable to advise clients with enough certainty about what inventions would be deemed patent eligible by patent examiners and later by the courts. -
The 2021 Report of the Economic Survey is Here!
September 22, 2021
The survey examines the economic aspects of intellectual property law practice, including individual billing rates and typical charges for representative IP law services. -
AIPLA Submits Comments Regarding the Draft Revision to the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines (Draft for Solicitation of Comments)
September 21, 2021
On September 21, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) regarding the Draft Revision to the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines (Draft for Solicitation of Comments). AIPLA provided comments and suggestions on more than fifteen guidelines outlined in a table format for readability. With respect to patent term compensation due to unreasonable delay at the CNIPA, drug patent term extension, and open license, in addition to seeking various classifications, AIPLA submitted a number of suggestions. -
UNICOLORS, INC., v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Docket No. 20-915, amicus brief filed 8/10/2021
August 10, 2021
On August 10, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Unicolors, Inc., v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (Case No. 20-915). The brief notes that the Ninth Circuit decision in the case increases the risk to copyright owners in that any erroneous legal conclusions set forth in a copyright application may have draconian repercussions, and if upheld, will likely increase the costs and burdens of copyright litigation. Two courses of action are suggested, including reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and recognizing the inherent power of district court judges to determine whether an allegation that a registrant has knowingly included inaccurate facts is reasonably plausible before referring a case to the Register of Copyrights.