Copyright Office

In a joint letter, AIPLA and IPO urged Congress to ensure the USPTO has the resources and flexibility needed to address its patent application backlog, which has reached 826,000. The letter notes that timely patent examination is essential to US innovation, economic growth, and global competitiveness, yet recent executive actions—such as a hiring freeze, return-to-office mandates, and employee buyouts—may impact the USPTO’s operations. Unlike other agencies, the USPTO is funded by user fees, not taxpayer dollars, and must retain resources to process applications efficiently. Restrictive policies could slow innovation, weaken IP protection, and harm US economic leadership. Secretary of Commerce nominee Howard Lutnick has acknowledged the urgency of reducing delays, and we support efforts to strengthen the USPTO’s capacity. AIPLA and IPO welcome the opportunity to work with Congress on legislative and administrative solutions that support American inventors and businesses.

On November 20, 2024, the USPTO published its final rule, “Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2025,” which will take effect on Sunday, January 19, 2025. Since the April 3, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish or increase certain patent fees, AIPLA has actively engaged with its members by gathering feedback, submitting written comments, meeting with USPTO officials, and hosting informational webinars to keep members informed of the changes. As the implementation date approaches, members have raised additional questions, prompting AIPLA to seek clarification from the USPTO. Read below the results of our outreach with the Office.

Arlington, VA. December 23, 2024 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted a letter of recommendation on IP priorities for the Trump Transition Team emphasizing the critical role of IP in driving innovation and economic growth.

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.