Executive Advocacy
AIPLA regularly provides comments to different agencies within the U.S. government, as well as to other domestic organizations, on matters impacting intellectual property laws and protection.
Internal Revenue Service
- AIPLA Testimony on proposed revisions to 26 C.F.R. Parts 1 and 301, delivered February 21, 2008 before the Internal Revenue Service. (PDF)
- AIPLA Response to the October 2007 rule proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on “Patented Transactions,”submitted December 26, 2007 (3 pages - 37K* - Click PDF to view the Response; click HERE to view the IRS proposed rule (10/22/2007)
National Academy of Sciences
- AIPLA Response to the National Research Council's Report on Reaping The Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research (31 pages –197K* Click HEREto view the Response; For information on the Report: Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health, please visit The National Academies Press by clicking HERE.)
- AIPLA Response to the National Academies Report entitled "A Patent System for the 21st Century" (49 pages–243K* Click PDF to view the Response; Click PDF to view the Report.)
National Institutes of Health
- Comments on Draft Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services: "Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests" 74(52) Federal Register 11730 (March 19, 2009) ( PDF)
National Institute of Standards and Technology
- AIPLA Comments to NIST on March-In Rights Guidance, February 5, 2024 (PDF)
- AIPLA Feedback to NIST Draft Green Paper on ROI Initiative February 8, 2019 (PDF)
- AIPLA Response NIST Bayh-Dole Regulation, Dec 9, 2016 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standards) on Standardization Feedback for Sub-Committee on Standards, February 18, 2011 (PDF)
US Customs and Border Protection
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Customs 21st Century Framework, February 2, 2019 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Proposed Rulemaking, "Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border," June 25, 2012 (PDF)
US International Trade Commission
- AIPLA Comments on the International Trade Commission’s Investigation of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), May 3, 2023 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Commission's Rules of General Application, Adjudication and Enforcement, November 23, 2015 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Commission FY2015 Budget and Space for Section 337 Investigations, May 19, 2014 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments: "Interagency Review of Exclusion Order Enforcement Process," July 19, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules of General Application, Adjudication, and Enforcement,” December 4, 2012 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules of General Application, Adjudication, and Enforcement,” September 17, 2012 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on Proposed Revisions to Rules of Practice and Procedure and Proposed Handbook on Filing Procedures, August 5, 2011 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on proposed revisions to 19 C.F.R. Sections 201 and 210, filed March 19, 2008 at the US International Trade Commission (PDF)
US Securities and Exchange Commission
- AIPLA Comments to Concept Release on Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K, August 9, 2016 (PDF)
US Trade Representative
- Letter Submitted to the Office of the US Trade Representative Supporting US Opposition to TRIPS Waiver Proposal, March 30, 2021 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Relating to Civil or Commercial Matters, March 19, 2018 (PDF)
- AIPLA and PhRMA Comments on Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Relating to Civil or Commercial Matters Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International Law, July 19, 2017 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ("ACTA" or "Agreement") and the ongoing negotiations between the possible Member States, submitted September 27, 2010. (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Proposed Amendment and Correction of Trademark Registrations published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003 (Comments submitted February 2, 2004) (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the "Work Program set forth in the draft Ministerial Declaration submitted by the WTO General Council and WTO Director-General for consideration at the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference scheduled for Doha, Qatar next month" (October 11, 2001) (PDF)
Other
AIPLA Files Comments to Health and Human Services (HHS) on the World Health Organization's (WHO) Proposed Pandemic Treaty
- AIPLA Comments to HHS on WHO Pandemic Treaty, January 31, 2024 (PDF)
AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order
- AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order, August 26, 2022 (PDF)
AIPLA Comments to ACUS on Patent Small Claims Court
- AIPLA Comments on a Potential Small Claims Patent Court or Small Claims Patent Proceeding and its Impacts, July 5, 2022 (PDF)
Regarding the Position of the USPTO Director
- AIPLA Comments to the Department of Commerce Regarding the Position of USPTO Director, June 28, 2017 (PDF)
- AIPLA White Paper Concerning the Recommended Qualifications for the Next Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, November 2013 (PDF)
Office of the Presidential Transition
- AIPLA Letter to Biden Administration, February 26, 2021 (PDF)
- AIPLA Letter to President-Elect Donald Trump, January 4, 2017 ()
U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, December 3, 2018 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, October 30, 2015 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments: "Interagency Review of Exclusion Order Enforcement Process," July 19, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to OMB Regarding Negative Impact of Sequestration on USPTO Funding and Operations, May 21, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in Response to Request for Public Comments for "Trade Secret Theft Strategy Legislative Review," April 22, 2013 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments to U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, August 10, 2012 (PDF)
The Sedona Conference
- AIPLA Comments on the Sedona Conference Report on the Markman Process, submitted February 2, 2007 (PDF)
- AIPLA Comments on the Revised April 2005 Public Comment Draft" of The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases (the "Draft Guidelines"). Filed May 14, 2006. (PDF)
- Letter expressing initial concerns of AIPLA on the Revised April 2005 Public Comment Draft" of The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases (the "Draft Guidelines"). Filed March 10, 2006. (PDF)
Miscellaneous
- AIPLA Joint Comments to Mayor Eric Garcetti in Support of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, March 9, 2018 (PDF)
In This Section
Recent Advocacy
Written March 25, 2026
On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The majority opinion limits contributory liability to situations where a party intended that its service be used for infringement, either by affirmatively inducing infringement or by selling a service tailored to infringement. A concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor argues that the material contribution test should be retained, and that other forms of secondary liability can be found, which is consistent with the position asserted by AIPLA in its amicus brief filed on September 5, 2025. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here.
BACKGROUND
The case centers on whether an internet service provider (ISP) can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers when the ISP receives repeated notices of infringement but does not terminate user accounts. Cox Communications, one of the nation’s largest ISPs, was sued by Sony Music and other record labels after rights holders sent hundreds of thousands of notices alleging that subscribers repeatedly shared copyrighted music via peer-to-peer networks. Plaintiffs argued that Cox knowingly allowed infringement to continue by issuing warnings but rarely terminating service. In 2019, a jury found Cox liable for willful contributory infringement and awarded $1 billion in damages. The Fourth Circuit later vacated the damages award while affirming the finding of contributory liability.
The Court heard oral argument on December 1, 2025, to address the central question: Can an ISP be held willfully liable for copyright infringement based solely on knowledge of infringing activity and a failure to terminate access? The case raises significant questions about the scope of secondary liability and the obligations of ISPs to police user conduct online. Sony argued that Cox’s failure to meaningfully enforce its repeat-infringer policy amounted to willful facilitation of piracy. Cox, by contrast, contended that contributory infringement requires affirmative conduct beyond mere knowledge, and that imposing liability for failing to terminate accounts would force ISPs to cut off entire households, businesses, and institutions based on the actions of individual users.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that an ISP is contributorily liable “only if it intended” that the service be used for infringement. The majority opinion further held that intent can be shown “only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.” The majority cited its precedents in Grokster and Sony in support of its conclusions, and asserted that its holding is consistent with the Patent Act. The majority further held that Sony “overreads” the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and disagrees that Congress enacted the DMCA on the presumption that ISPs could be held liable in cases such as these.
Under the majority’s holding, an ISP cannot be found liable for secondary infringement based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement. As a result, it vacated the Fourth Circuit ruling and remanded the case.
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, concurred in the judgment only. The concurring opinion asserted that “the majority, without any meaningful explanation, unnecessarily limits secondary liability even though this Court’s precedents have left open the possibility that other common-law theories of such liability, like aiding and abetting, could apply in the copyright context.” The concurring opinion acknowledged that contributory infringement “attaches when a party materially contributes in some ways to another’s infringement.” This is consistent with AIPLA’s amicus brief, which argued that the material contribution test should be retained in order for courts to have flexibility.
The concurring opinion further concluded that the majority’s opinion “dismantles the statutory incentive structure that Congress created” under the DMCA. “The majority’s new rule completely upends that balance and consigns the safe harbor provision to obsolescence.”
While the majority did not address it, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion analyzed the evidence before the jury and found that it failed to meet the level of support necessary to establish intent under an aiding-and-abetting liability standard. For that reason, Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Jackson) concurred in the judgment only.