Judicial Advocacy

AIPLA files amicus briefs in cases that are important to its members, following a long tradition of judicial advocacy. Those briefs are accessible by clicking the relevant year of the case in the navigation column on the left side of this page.

The AIPLA Amicus Committee receives many requests from parties in litigation for the Association's amicus support, and the Committee considers and recommends to the Board of Directors the best cases for AIPLA to join and urge its positions on the cutting edge issues of the law. Although AIPLA welcomes the views of the parties to the dispute, the AIPLA amicus positions are the product of independent consideration by the Committee and the Board of Directors, based on the law and an their understanding of policy and legal questions in dispute.



Interested in Requesting AIPLA Consideration for Amicus Support?

For more information on how to request AIPLA's consideration for amicus support and to learn more about the process, please click HERE.

Learn More About the Amicus Committee Leadership


For information about the Amicus Committee and it's current leadership, please click HERE.

Click the tabs below to explore some of AIPLA's judicial advocacy:

2020
2019
2018
2017

Judicial Advocacy Archives

To see amicus briefs filed by AIPLA from previous years, please click here

Recent Advocacy

  • AIPLA Submits Comments to USPTO Regarding National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation

    February 23, 2021

    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
  • Comments Submitted by AIPLA to USPTO Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study

    February 22, 2021

    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 Comments on Implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act

    February 3, 2021

    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.
  • AIPLA Submits Comments to USPTO Regarding the Article of Manufacture Requirement

    February 2, 2021

    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.
  • 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.