Judicial Advocacy

AIPLA files amicus briefs in litigation that is 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 screens 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

  • 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 <em>Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994</em>