Advocacy Articles - Standard List

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.

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.

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.

On July 29, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) submitted a joint letter to Senators Leahy, Shaheen, Tillis, and Moran expressing concern over resources appropriated to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in FY 2022. The letter asserted that it is imperative for the USPTO to receive access to all its fees, urging passage of a funding measure that reflects the intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to fund the USPTO at a level equal to fee collection estimates.

On July 29, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Ezaki Glico Co. v. Lotte International America Corp. (Case No. 20-1817). The brief addresses the Third Circuit’s conclusion that product design trade dress is functional, and therefore not protectable, if it is “useful.” The brief also questions the Third Circuit’s displacement of what remained of the traditional rule with principles of the separate doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Moreover, because trade dress is typically associated with ubiquitous products (especially the trade dress that is copied), it is likely that a trade dress owner would be forced to defend its trade dress in the Third Circuit under the new rule.

On July 19, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) of 2020. The comments addressed seven aspects of the NPRM: (1) ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings; (2) the petition filing fee; (3) the identification of the real party in interest in a petition; (4) flexible response periods; (5) letters of protest; (6) attorney recognition; and (7) the proposed burden hours for private sector respondents.

On June 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a letter to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin and the Honorable Charles L. Grassley, Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter supported the nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham, President Biden's nominee for Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AIPLA wrote that Ms. Cunningham’s background and professional experience demonstrate that she is qualified to serve in that position, and that she would make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit.

On May 24, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the Director for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the proposed administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin (GRB). The comments made were in support of the proposal to add the common Category B categories to Category A to reflect current and anticipated patenting activity, and of the proposal to amend Category B, Options 2 and 4, to permit a combination of courses that need not be sequential. AIPLA also advised considering the addition of degrees matching emerging technical fields on a regular basis and supports the inclusion of master’s and doctoral degrees as acceptable under the requirements of Category A.

On April 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on Notification of Inquiry regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations. As a general matter, AIPLA believes that it is important to keep the procedures as straight forward and accessible as possible to ensure this will be a new, simple, and low-cost process to resolve small copyright claims. AIPLA encourages the Copyright Claims Board to publish standardized forms and instructions. Additionally, AIPLA is in favor of providing a Second Notice through the U.S. Postal Service. For ease of delivery, AIPLA is in favor of a Designated Agent directory. Online submission of opt-out notices should be encouraged, but a paper option is also recommended. To strike an appropriate balance of discovery, AIPLA recommends that the CCB require a standardized, initial disclosure of relevant information.

On March 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments regarding the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes. In the comments, AIPLA requests clarification of handling of patent invalidity challenges, since substantial ambiguity remains. AIPLA requests an 8-month deadline to complete the adjudication in the Draft Measures, and requests extensions of notice periods and filing deadlines. AIPLA also requests that the Draft Measures include a corresponding provision providing that if a case has been accepted by either CNIPA or the People’s Court, any case subsequently filed in the other tribunal shall not be accepted on the same asserted claims. Finally, AIPLA requests that all possible appeals have been resolved or the time within which to appeal has expired without an appeal being filed.

On March 22, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding disclaimer practice in patents and patent applications. AIPLA supports the Office’s proposed revisions to the rules and includes a suggestion to clarify the rules regarding disclaimers by parties to a joint research agreement. 

On March 22, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to Senator Thom Tillis in response to the discussion draft of The Digital Copyright Act (“DCA”) of 2021. AIPLA’s comments largely mirror and reflect AIPLA’s positions expressed on prior occasions, with comments directed to the concepts addressed and not to any specific proposed language. AIPLA’s comments support the concept of advancing the DMCA towards a “notice-and-staydown” regime. AIPLA also advocates further study into the use of a standardized unique identifier that would more effectively identify content.

AIPLA is pleased to support the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act (“IDEA”) Act of 2021. We appreciate the Committee’s continued interest in improving inventor diversity and urge you to move forward with the legislation.

AIPLA's amicus brief generally supports keeping the doctrine of assignor estoppel without supporting either party’s position, but allowing for certain exceptions consistent with the findings in Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 348 (1924). The brief distinguishes assignor estoppel from the doctrine of licensee estoppel that was abolished in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969), and also outlines the profound risks and cloud of uncertainty around assigned patents that might occur should the Court abolish assignor estoppel.

On February 26th, AIPLA submitted recommendations on the Association’s intellectual property priorities to the Biden Administration. AIPLA advocates for top-caliber USPTO leadership, including a variety of relevant requirements for appointees. Support was also expressed for continued adequate funding for the USPTO examination process to ensure high-quality patents. AIPLA suggested a multitude of initiatives to strengthen trademark registration, including but not limited to reinforcing existing trademark-related COVID relief measures, prioritizing effective and fair implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act, and preventing abuse of the U.S. trademark system. In relation to IP rights abroad, AIPLA supports efforts in raising the minimum standard of IP protections abroad so that they appropriately protect the investments of U.S. innovators. AIPLA also looks forward to continuing to collaborate with the National Council for Expanding American Innovation (NCEAI) and the Administration to advance diversity and inclusion initiatives.

On February 23, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Notice regarding the National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation. AIPLA's comments include suggestions for the support of individuals, including the implementation of shared workspaces, hubs, and labs, workshops, internships, and promotion of meetings and clubs, among other ideas. Some of AIPLA's comments regarding lowering the barriers to innovation in underrepresented groups include adjusting internal culture and increasing representation in leadership. READ MORE

On February 22, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 70,589 (November 5, 2020) (Docket Number: PTO–T–2020–0043). With respect to patent and trademark infringement, AIPLA believes that the record of reported cases provides support for abrogation of state immunity. With respect to trademark infringement, however, there are critical differences between those cases and patent and copyright infringement actions.  READ MORE

AIPLA provided feedback to the USPTO on the implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA). The feedback three aspects of the TMA: general comments, comments on flexible response times, and comments regarding ex parte expungement and ex parte reexamination proceedings. AIPLA continues to advocate for a shorter response period to Office Action refusals that include only ministerial or procedural objections. AIPLA also provided feedback on a number of subsections regarding ex parte expungement and ex parte reexamination proceedings.

On February 2, 2021, AIPLA filed comments in response to the USPTO’s Notice regarding the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Design Patents under 35 U.S.C. 171. AIPLA indicated its support for a change in the interpretation of eligibility guidelines for computer-generated images to accept other articles of manufacture associated with the underlying programmed computer, instead of requiring that the image appear on a display screen.

AIPLA filed a response to the USPTO’s request for comments on proposed continuing legal education guidelines objecting to ongoing efforts by the USPTO to institute a de facto federal CLE requirement and reporting system, noting that the biennial registration requirements and reporting systems are unnecessary and may lead to an active practitioner fee. AIPLA also expressed concern that the proposal would eventually result in a mandatory CLE program requiring a costly infrastructure which would ultimately result in fees increases to support it. AIPLA expressed further concern that the rulemaking efforts may not have complied with rulemaking requirements.