From the Desk of the President

I’m sure I am not alone in sometimes forgetting that AIPLA is global, with many international committees and subcommittees.  These committees work to establish and maintain relations with professional societies in regions and countries around the world whose members are interested in intellectual property law.  Committee members study international IP laws and practices and report on issues of interest to AIPLA’s Board of Directors and membership.  

Almost every year, these committees organize trips around the world, which provide great educational and relationship-building experiences. During my presidency, I was privileged to attend some of these trips and see the value firsthand. In addition, several other internationally focused events have taken place this past year.

My first trip was to one of our sister organizations in Winnipeg, Canada.  I was honored to attend the IPIC (Intellectual Property Institute of Canada) Annual Conference in early October 2023, where I learned about many IP issues of interest in Canada, including intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples.

In January 2024 we held a Colloquium in Puerto Rico on “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in the Intellectual Property Environment.” Along with our cosponsors ASIPI (Inter-American Intellectual Property Association), IPIC, and Invent Together, we considered issues of equality for everyone across the spectrum of the IP environment. We focused on three perspectives . . . those that are government IP-related, IP Professionals-related, and inventors-related. The guidepost for our discussions was the phrase: Diversity is a Fact; Inclusion is a Choice. Speakers shared personal experiences in an open environment. Frankly, I was a bit hesitant going in, but the open discussions were amazing.

In April, I joined the AIPLA’s IP Practice in the Far East Committee (soon to be renamed the Asia Pacific Committee). The 12-member delegation, organized by Chair Thomas Treutler and Vice-Chair Sang Yoon Kang, took us to IP authorities and practitioner associations all around the region. In Thailand, we visited the Thailand Central IP and International Trade Court (CIPITC) and held a joint seminar with their Deputy Chief Justice and several judges where we shared some of AIPLA’s perspective on IP.  We also had a working session to share ideas with the Deputy Director General of the Thailand Department of Intellectual Property, received an update on IP developments in all 10 ASEAN countries from the USPTO’s IP Attaché for Southeast Asia, and discussed Thailand’s quickly developing electric car industry with the Electric Vehicle Association of Thailand (EVAT).

In Taiwan, we held a joint seminar with the Taiwan Patent Attorneys Association (TWPAA) and visited the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) (with the TIPO Director General in attendance). We also presented on US IP developments at a TWPAA program with about 50 TWPAA in attendance along with 60 or so virtual attendees from all around Taiwan.  The delegation visited the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (an organization very interested in the intersections between IP law and competition law), and the Taiwan IP and Commercial Court (IPCC), where we received updates on patent litigation in Taiwan from the Division Chief Judge.

April was a busy month, as I then joined the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Japan Committee for a trip organized by Chair Kevin Kunzendorf and Vice-Chair Nick Mattingly. This 20-member delegation visited IP authorities and practitioners in the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the AIPPI Japan group, the LES Japan group, the U.S. Embassy, the Japanese Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA), the IP High Court of Japan, and the Japanese Intellectual Property Association (JIPA).  And, per custom, we enjoyed a fun-filled night of karaoke hosted by the JPAA. Some of the delegation played in a JPAA/AIPLA friendship golf tournament. The overarching theme of the trip was Artificial Intelligence (AI) from multiple perspectives - substantive law perspective, regulatory perspective, and “effect on the profession” perspective.  We heard about the Japanese government’s recent (2023) report on “AI Guidelines for Business” and the JPO’s upcoming report on its recently completed (March 2024) research study on the use of generative AI in patenting.  

In May, I attended a World IP Day event in Washington, DC.  World IP Day was established by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) in 2000 and is celebrated annually. This day highlights awareness of how intellectual property impacts and advances society and improves everyday life. World IP Day is also an opportunity to recognize contributions by innovators and creators across the globe.  This year’s theme was “IP and the SDGs (or “Sustainable Development Goals”): Building Our Common Future with Innovation and Creativity.”  This year World IP Day highlighted the critical importance of IP in catalyzing human innovation and creativity in relation to the United Nations SDGs.  During this meeting, we heard from panelists on how the SDGs are being addressed through IP and innovation, as well as USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, and Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA).

In June, I joined the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Europe trip to Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.  There were 20+ delegates on this trip organized by Chair Elisabetta Papa and Vice Chair Ryan Pool.  We met with, learned from, and socialized with people form PAK (Patentanwaltskammer), GRUR (German Association for Intellectual Property Law, the largest and oldest association in Germany that is devoted to the protection of intellectual property), EPLAW (European Patent Lawyers Assocation), ASPI (Association Française des Spécialistes en Propriété Industrielle de l'Industrie), AIPPI (Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle or International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property), CNCPI (French Patent & Trademark Attorneys Institute), FICPI (Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Intellectuelle or International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys), CIPA (Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys - the professional and examining body for patent attorneys in the United Kingdom), and CITMA (Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys). We met with officials at the EPO (European Patent Office), UPC Central Division, and UKIPO (United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office).  We discussed issues such as the EU Design Law, the influence of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the practice of the EPO, German Utility Models, use of AI within the EPO and at the Board of Appeal, and substantive harmonization issues.  One of the highlights of the trip was a personal tour of an exhibition on the history and architecture of the European Patent Office.

Also in June, I found myself in Seoul, Korea at the 17th meeting of the IP5 Heads of Office Meeting with Industry.  The meeting was hosted by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). The global Offices reaffirmed their commitment to an inclusive and accessible IP system in support of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). The IP5 Heads also shared key initiatives and policies to support small and medium entities, micro-entities, and start-ups in leveraging IP to grow.

In August, it was on to Argentina and Chile with AIPLA’s IP Practice in Latin America trip led by Chair Ignacio Sanchez Echague. We visited IP organizations and held discussions on the challenges presented by different cultures with the goal of fostering international collaboration.  In Buenos Aires, Argentina, the key meetings involved a discussion of the role of women in IP, a visit to the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), and a meeting with the Argentine Association of Constitutional Justice.  I had the privilege of opening the Annual Convention of Argentine IP Agents (AAAPI).  We also visited the U.S. Embassy to discuss IP from a U.S. perspective and held in-depth discussions on patent protection, particularly in pharmaceuticals.  

In Santiago de Chile, Chile, the key meetings included meeting with the ACHIPI (Asociación Chilena de la Propiedad Intelectual), visiting INAPI (Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial), and discussing IP dispute resolutions at the Intellectual Property Court (TDPI). At the U.S. embassy, we discussed U.S.-Chile IP cooperation, we talked about successful innovation and tech transfer efforts at the Pontifical Catholic University, and we explored collaboration opportunities at AmCham Chile.  From a cultural perspective, we visited historic sites and enjoyed traditional Chilean cuisine.

While the food and cultural exchanges were amazing, most of all, these trips successfully strengthened international relationships, particularly the IP relationships, provided valuable insights, and opened doors for future collaboration with AIPLA.  When starting my career, I never believed I would ever be so privileged to take part in such important international endeavors. I want to encourage AIPLA members who may be interested in such activities to get involved in these dynamic committees.

Ann M. Mueting