AIPLA Past Action Manual and Board Resolutions

Recent Board Resolutions

Venue

RESOLVED that the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) favors, in principle, amending 28 U.S.C. § 1400 by substituting the following for subsection (b):

 

(b) A civil action for patent infringement or an action for a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed may be brought only in a judicial district

 

(1) where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business;

 

(2) where the defendant has agreed or consented to be sued in the instant action;

 

(3) where (i) the defendant has committed acts of infringement, (ii) a plaintiff owns, controls or operates a regular and established place of business, and (iii) either research or development relating to a patent-in-suit occurred prior to the patent’s priority date, or the patent rights holder is manufacturing a product claimed in the patent-in-suit at the time the complaint is filed; or

 

(4) where, in the case of a defendant not resident in the United States, in any judicial district, in accordance with section 1391(c)(3).

 

(Board of Directors Meeting – January 24, 2018.)

 

USPTO Fee-Setting Authority

RESOLVED, that the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) supports extending the authority of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to set the rates and fees that it charges the public, consistent with the manner provided for in the America Invents Act.

 

(Board of Directors Meeting – May 17, 2018.)

 

CBM Program Extension

RESOLVED, that the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) opposes any extension of the transitional Covered Business Methods (CBM) program as enacted in the American Invents Act, and also supports maintaining the current sunset period and discontinuing the program as of September 16, 2020.

 

(Board of Directors Meeting – May 17, 2018.)