Advocacy Articles - Standard List
-
1-800 Contacts v. Federal Trade Commission, 2nd Cir., No. 18-3848, amicus brief filed 06/14/2019.
June 14, 2019
The Federal Trade Commission erred in multiple respects in holding that the parties’ agreed-upon advertising prohibitions unreasonably restrain trade in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, AIPLA argued in a June 14, 2019, amicus brief. -
Testimony of Barbara A. Fiacco, AIPLA President-Elect, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on “The State of Patent Eligibility in America: Part II”
June 5, 2019
As one of the fifteen witnesses, AIPLA President-Elect Barbara Fiacco presented the views of the Association during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property's second of three hearings on “The State of Patent Eligibility in America.” -
Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, amicus brief filed 5/1/2019.
May 7, 2019
This Amicus Brief addresses the question of what is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted non-patent reference qualifies as a “printed publication” at the institution stage. -
H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019
April 18, 2019
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.
-
Comments of the AIPLA to the current Standard Protective Order
March 29, 2019
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to have this opportunity to provide comments on the current version of the USPTO’s Standard Protective Order for use in Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) opposition and cancellation proceedings. In particular, this is to respond to the questions posed by the Board regarding access by in-house counsel to “Confidential – For Attorneys' Eyes Only” (AEO) material. -
Letter to USPTO on TTAB Standard Protective Order
March 29, 2019
AIPLA believes that whether it is appropriate for in-house counsel to have access to AEO information and documents should be a case-by-case determination, considering a variety of factors, including whether that counsel is in a competitive decision-making position, whether the parties are competitors, whether both parties have in-house counsel, the preference of individual clients, and the issues that may be relevant to the particular matter. -
AIPLA Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants
March 18, 2019
AIPLA believes that the USPTO's proposed rule requiring the appointment of U.S. counsel to guide non-U.S. applicants, registrants, and parties in trademark matters is a useful and necessary first step in minimizing problematic filings, but is concerned that it will not fully address the issue. -
Comments on 2019 Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 112
March 8, 2019
AIPLA applauds the Office for again providing practitioners and examiners with instructions on how to analyze patent claims including functional limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(f) and 112(b) and how to analyze claims for compliance with the enablement and written-description requirements under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). -
Comments on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
March 8, 2019
AIPLA applauds the Office for providing a valuable guide for determining patent eligibility and is grateful to the Office for providing what AIPLA believes is a better framework for analyzing subject matter eligibility than was provided by the multiple previous guidance documents. -
Comments on Access to Relevant Prior Art Initiative
March 8, 2019
AIPLA applauds the Office for working to reduce the burden on applicants filing a continuation application by automatically importing citations from the immediate parent application into continuing application and for creating a mechanism to document references filed in a parent application which have received consideration by the Examiner in the continuing application. -
Iancu v. Brunetti, U.S., No. 18-302, amicus brief filed 2/25/2019.
February 26, 2019
The Lanham Act ban against registering immoral and scandalous marks violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it has a viewpoint-discriminatory effect, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a February 25, 2018 amicus brief. -
Letter to Representative Jeffries in Support of Legislation to Amend Section 2(b) of the Lanham Act
February 15, 2019
The American Intellectual Property Law Association submitted a letter to Representative Jeffries supporting his proposed to amend section 2(b) of the Lanham Act. -
Letter in Support of CBP's Efforts to Modernize
February 2, 2019
The American Intellectual Property Law Association submitted a letter to the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) supporting its efforts to modernize to meet the challenges of today’s trade environment and to proactively prepare for future trade environments, particularly as the importance of intellectual property rights in the global economy continues to rise. -
Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC., PTAB, Case No. IPR2018-00914, amicus brief filed 12/28/2018.
January 8, 2019
AIPLA on December 28, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Precedential Opinion Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the circumstances in which the Director may grant a motion for self-joinder should be the exception, not the rule. -
AIPLA Supplemental Comments on FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century: Discussion of Innovation and IP Policy
December 21, 2018
AIPLA understands antitrust enforcers sometimes refer to “innovation” as “dynamic competition.” We commend modern U.S. antitrust law for recognizing that “competition” and “innovation” are generally synonymous, and that innovation-based competition is equally as important as themore traditional static “price competition”. -
AIPLA Comments to United States Patent and Trademark Office on Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
December 20, 2018
AIPLA appreciates the Office’s efforts to improve AIA trial proceedings, which have become pervasive since their initial implementation in September 2012. On several prior occasions, AIPLA has expressed its concerns with the existing motions to amend practice and procedure, and especially appreciates the Office’s attempt to improve this practice and make motions to amend, as contemplated by the statute, a more viable option as part of a trial proceeding. -
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, U.S., No. 17-1657, filed 12/17/2018.
December 17, 2018
A debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement— which “constitutes a breach of such contract,” 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)—does not terminate those licensee rights that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief. -
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, U.S., No. 17-1594, amicus brief supporting a petition for certiorari, filed 12/17/2018.
December 17, 2018
The Federal Circuit erroneously held that the government is a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §321(a) for purposes of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review the validity of a patent in a covered business method proceeding, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief. -
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1625, amicus brief on the merits supporting neither party, filed 11/19/2018.
December 6, 2018
AIPLA on November 19, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that awards of “full costs” under Section 505 of the Copyright Act are limited to categories that courts may tax as costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920 and order paid to witnesses under 28 U.S.C. §1821. -
Re: Comments Submitted Pursuant to “Notification of Inquiry,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52336 (Oct. 17, 2018)
October 17, 2018
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the United States Copyright Office (the “Office”) Notification of Inquiry, 83 Fed. Reg. 52336, issued October 17, 2018, concerning various proposed efforts to modernize the registration process (NOI).