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.

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.

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.

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.

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.