Judicial Advocacy

Arlington, VA. January 18, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (No. 22-148) supporting reversal and remand of the Ninth Circuit’s decision below. The case involves VIP’s “humorous” use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product.

Arlington, VA. January 1, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed a merits-stage amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic Int’l Inc., Case. No. 21-1043.

Arlington, VA. August 4, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief  in the two PTAB cases of OpenSky Industries, LLC, Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, and Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC, which USPTO Director Vidal has taken up to address what actions the USPTO Director should take when faced with assertions of an abuse of process or conduct that otherwise thwarts, as opposed to advances, the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. AIPLA’s brief argues that the review procedures implemented in these proceedings are adequate to address the rare instances of alleged abuse of process or alleged conduct contrary to the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. 

Arlington, VA. September 16, 2022,- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Certiorari currently pending before the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148. The decision below, decided by the Ninth Circuit, involved the unauthorized use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product that purportedly parodied the Jack Daniel’s brand. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the dog toys infringed its rights under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects all “humorous” or parodic uses of others’ trademarks regardless of the nature of the underlying product, becoming the first court to apply such protections outside of Lanham Act disputes involving artistic works.

AIPLA submitted an amicus brief in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, the case addresses the role of transformativeness in the copyright fair use analysis.  AIPLA urged three main points on the Court.  First, the importance of a flexible, adaptable fair use doctrine, explaining that at least all four enumerated statutory fair use factors should be weighed and no one factor should be prioritized over all other factors found in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Second, AIPLA advocated for a more objective “reasonable perception” standard in determining a work’s purpose and meaning; which should mitigate against the impact of self-interested testimony and judicial preferences and yield more predictable outcomes. Third, AIPLA urged the Court to expressly reject a celebrity-plagiarist exception to copyright infringement because fair use should be applied equally to all and should not turn on whether an artist or their style is famous.

 

On August 10, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Unicolors, Inc., v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (Case No. 20-915). The brief notes that the Ninth Circuit decision in the case increases the risk to copyright owners in that any erroneous legal conclusions set forth in a copyright application may have draconian repercussions, and if upheld, will likely increase the costs and burdens of copyright litigation. Two courses of action are suggested, including reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and recognizing the inherent power of district court judges to determine whether an allegation that a registrant has knowingly included inaccurate facts is reasonably plausible before referring a case to the Register of Copyrights.

On July 29, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Ezaki Glico Co. v. Lotte International America Corp. (Case No. 20-1817). The brief addresses the Third Circuit’s conclusion that product design trade dress is functional, and therefore not protectable, if it is “useful.” The brief also questions the Third Circuit’s displacement of what remained of the traditional rule with principles of the separate doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Moreover, because trade dress is typically associated with ubiquitous products (especially the trade dress that is copied), it is likely that a trade dress owner would be forced to defend its trade dress in the Third Circuit under the new rule.

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.

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 argues that the addition of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) to an otherwise generic term can, under certain circumstances, create a protectable trademark. However, a per se rule that a mark consisting of a generic term and a gTLD is generic should be rejected by the Supreme Court.

AIPLA asks the Supreme Court to hold that Java API software is eligible for copyright protection as a literary work; argues that the scope of copyright does not extend to the declaring code portions of the Java API as a method of operation under section 102(B); and contends that fair use factors must be weighted on a case-by-case basis.

The specific works at issue in this case are the annotations contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. The brief argues that these annotations are official, State-authored guidance to citizens on what the law is, and therefore should not be subject to copyright protection.

AIPLA argues that that proof of willfulness should not be required for an accounting of profits under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act.

AIPLA argues that the Supreme Court should affirm the Federal Circuit’s en banc holding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board’s) final determination of whether a petition for inter partes review is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

AIPLA argues that the Supreme Court should reject the Government’s argument that an applicant challenging a PTAB decision under Section 145 must also pay pro rata for PTO attorney and staff time, even if the applicant’s challenge is successful.

The Federal Trade Commission erred in multiple respects in holding that the parties’ agreed-upon advertising prohibitions unreasonably restrain trade in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, AIPLA argued in a June 14, 2019, amicus brief.

This Amicus Brief addresses the question of what is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted non-patent reference qualifies as a “printed publication” at the institution stage.

The Lanham Act ban against registering immoral and scandalous marks violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it has a viewpoint-discriminatory effect, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a February 25, 2018 amicus brief.

AIPLA on December 28, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Precedential Opinion Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the circumstances in which the Director may grant a motion for self-joinder should be the exception, not the rule.

A debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement— which “constitutes a breach of such contract,” 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)—does not terminate those licensee rights that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief.

The Federal Circuit erroneously held that the government is a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §321(a) for purposes of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review the validity of a patent in a covered business method proceeding, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief.

AIPLA on November 19, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that awards of “full costs” under Section 505 of the Copyright Act are limited to categories that courts may tax as costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920 and order paid to witnesses under 28 U.S.C. §1821.

The Federal Circuit erred in construing the on-sale provisions of 35 USC 102 by failing to recognize that a sale creates a prior art disclosure only if the sale makes the claimed invention “publicly available,” AIPLA argued in a September 4, 2018 amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

The Federal Circuit failed to give effect to a revision of the “on sale” doctrine made by the America Invents Act (AIA) which imposed a “public availability” requirement not only on the fact of an early sale but also on the subject matter of the sale, i.e., the “claimed invention,” according to an AIPLA amicus brief supporting a petition for Supreme Court review. 

The Patent and Trademark Office has incorrectly interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring an award of attorneys' fees, win or lose, to the agency in district court proceedings reviewing decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 

A damages award for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) should include foreign lost profits when the harm was proximately caused by domestic infringement, AIPLA argued in a Supreme Court brief filed March 5, 2018.

Section 145 of the Patent Act, which permits disappointed patent applicants to seek district court review of PTO decisions, does not permit awards of attorneys' fees to PTO lawyers participating in the proceeding, according to an AIPLA brief to the en banc Federal Circuit. 

Congress's decision to permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to adjudicate and if necessary cancel issued patents does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or the Seventh Amendment, according to a brief filed August 31, 2017, at the Supreme Court. 

Communications between a patent agent and a client should enjoy the protections of an attorney-client privilege when those communications occur within the scope of a patent agent’s authority under the Patent Act, according to an AIPLA letter brief filed August 10, 2017, in the Supreme Court of Texas. 

A Federal Circuit panel misconstrued the statutory language and legislative history of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as amended by the America Invents Act (AIA), when it invalidated a patent based on a press release and SEC filing about a sales agreement by the patent owner, according to an AIPLA amicus brief urging en banc review of the case. 

The statute (35 U.S.C. 314(d)) barring appeals of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions to institute inter partes review proceedings (IPR) does not apply to the statute (35 U.S.C. 315(b)) prohibiting the Board from instituting an IPR on a petition filed more than one year after the petitioner was sued for infringement, according to an AIPLA amicus brief to the en banc Federal Circuit. 

The Federal Circuit correctly interpreted the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” in the patent venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b). 

The Supreme Court's decisions in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2012), and Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), require no change to the Federal Circuit law of international patent exhaustion and conditional sales, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a January 24, 2017 amicus brief.