Washington DC Sunrise

 

 

Recent Advocacy

  • Updates on the Forthcoming USPTO Patent Fees

    January 17, 2025

    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.
  • AIPLA Comments to Trump Transition Team on IP Priorities

    January 6, 2025

    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.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

    December 2, 2024

    Arlington, VA. November 26, 2024 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, in support of neither party.
  • AIPLA Comments on the Request for Comments on Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines

    January 7, 2021

    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.
  • AIPLA Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    December 3, 2020

    The American Intellectual Property Law Association today filed a response to the USPTO’s October 20, 2020 request for comments on discretion to institute trials in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The USPTO’s request solicits input on whether rulemaking is necessary and the type of rules it should adopt, but does not propose any rules.
  • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL., Respondents. Case No. 19-1434, 19-1452, amicus brief filed 12/2/2020.

    December 2, 2020

    AIPLA’s brief supports reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Supreme Court precedent does not support such a rigid, factor-specific approach, instead favoring a flexible analysis to assess whether an officer is “principal” or “inferior.” The brief explains that, while the question is a close one, the totality of the circumstances under this flexible approach supports finding that APJs are inferior officers who are constitutionally appointed.
  • AIPLA Comments on Revised Trademark Examination Guide 3-19 Examination of Specimens in Commerce: Digitally Created/Altered or Mockup Specimens

    October 12, 2020

    AIPLA appreciates the Trademark Office’s efforts to address the issue of fraudulent trademark specimens that incorporate digital alterations, thereby creating the false impression of use of a trademark in the marketplace. We also appreciate the Office’s transparency in providing clarity as to how the USPTO and Examiners will address fraudulent specimens. While AIPLA further recognizes the need for the USPTO to focus its attention on the authenticity of submitted specimens and whether they show marks as actually used in commerce as required by the Trademark Act, AIPLA has suggestions and comments on the revised Examination Guide.
  • AIPLA Comments on Proposed Rule Changes in Representation of Others Before the USPTO

    September 29, 2020

    AIPLA appreciates the USPTO’s willingness to continuously improve the conduct rules applicable to practice before the USPTO. AIPLA previously provided substantive comments to the last major revision of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (“USPTO Rules”), which overhauled the landscape of practice before the USPTO from being based upon the former American Bar Association (“ABA”) Code of Professional Responsibility to the more current Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Within those comments, AIPLA addressed concerns regarding the confidentiality rules. In response to comments, USPTO clarified the ability of a representative to withdraw in certain situations. See, e.g., 78 FR 21090.
  • AIPLA's Comments on the H.R. 6196, the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020

    September 8, 2020

    AIPLA supports the Trademark Modernization Act, legislation amending the federal Lanham Act to authorize the administrative invalidation by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of registrations covering marks that either have never been used in commerce, or are not used in commerce by the relevant date under the statute for obtaining a registration.
  • Comments Submitted Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,252

    September 2, 2020

    AIPLA's comments in response to the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office Notice and Request for Public Comment, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994
  • AIPLA Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for the Proposed Trademark Fee Schedule

    July 31, 2020

    AIPLA appreciates the Trademark Office’s efforts to take into consideration the comments previously submitted by AIPLA and other stakeholders regarding new trademark fees. AIPLA understands the needs of the Office to generate additional revenue from its users in order to facilitate effective operations. For this reason, our comments are limited to a small number of proposed fees.