On July 19, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) of 2020. The comments addressed seven aspects of the NPRM: (1) ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings; (2) the petition filing fee; (3) the identification of the real party in interest in a petition; (4) flexible response periods; (5) letters of protest; (6) attorney recognition; and (7) the proposed burden hours for private sector respondents.

On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the doctrine of assignor estoppel, but with limits on its application. This ruling is consistent with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on March 1, 2021.

On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Federal Circuit decision, dividing 5-4 on the judgment in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. In this majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) during inter partes review is constitutionally incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.

On June 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a letter to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin and the Honorable Charles L. Grassley, Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter supported the nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham, President Biden's nominee for Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AIPLA wrote that Ms. Cunningham’s background and professional experience demonstrate that she is qualified to serve in that position, and that she would make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit.

On June 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), finding that 1-800 Contact’s “typical trademark settlement agreements” did not unreasonably restrain trade in violation the Section 5 of the FTC Act given the lack of direct evidence of an anticompetitive effect and the strong procompetitive justification of protecting 1-800 Contract’s trademarks. The Court of Appeals also found that it did not have sufficient experience with the type of conduct at issue to permit the abbreviated antitrust analysis favored by the Commission, applying a full-blown rule of reason analysis instead. The Court remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to dismiss it.