Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
In This Section
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Post-Grant Strategies for Correcting and Challenging Patent Claims
March 4, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits
After a US patent issues, many procedures are available to correct the patent and challenge its validity. The America Invents Act (AIA), passed in 2011, changed the face of post-grant practice at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Inter Partes Review, Covered Business Method, and Post Grant Review procedures defined in the AIA have evolved continuously since their enactment, which has shifted their advantages relative to pre-existing Ex Parte Reexamination and Reissue procedures.
This webinar will provide a summary of post-grant procedures and describe when, why, and how each procedure is useful (or not) to patent owners and third-party challengers.
During the webinar, we will cover these topics and more:
- Review of post-grant procedures at the USPTO including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), Covered Business Method Review (CBM), Supplemental Examination, Ex Parte Reexamination, and Reissue applications
- Strategic purposes of the various post-grant procedures
- Tactics for petitioners and patent owners when multiple procedures are available
Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS: $65
- For multiple-attendee sites, all participants must attend at the same location.
- CLE certification/processing for applicable states. Reference CLE Information below for complete details.
- Webinar materials, including complete CLE processing information, accessible 24-48 hours before webinar date.
To get full refund, registrant must request refund five (5) days prior to live event. If less than five (5) days, registrant is transferred to product.
Webinar access is compatible with any Windows 7 or later computer, Android OS devices, or Apple/iOS devices. Check system compatibility here.
Accessibility for hearing impaired:
AIPLA’s webinars are available and accessible to individuals who are hearing impaired. If anyone at your location would like to know more about accommodations, please contact email@example.com. We ask that you let us know at least 7 business days out from the webinar, to ensure that we can identify and deploy the solution that best fits our registrants needs.
AIPLA is a pre-approved CLE provider with the following states:
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- New York
AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states:
ATTENTION attorneys in Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah
These states mandate attorneys can only view a webinar independently at their own computer to receive CLE credit. Multiple attendees prohibited.
ATTENTION attorneys in Arizona
Arizona does not certify courses or providers. Arizona lawyers are required to independently review AZ's regulations and make their own determination that it qualifies for credit towards their MCLE requirements. MCLE Regulation 104(A) identifies the standards to apply. AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting AZ CLE credit after the webinar.
ATTENTION attorneys in New Hampshire
New Hampshire attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance according to NH Supreme Court Rule 53. The New Hampshire Minimum Continuing Legal Education (NHMCLE) Board does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the NH Minimum CLE requirement. AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting NH CLE credit after the webinar.
Disclaimer: AIPLA is a nonprofit national bar association. The sole purpose of this CLE program is to provide educational and informational content. AIPLA does not provide legal services or advice. The opinions, views and other statements expressed by contributors to this CLE program are solely those of the contributors. These opinions, views and statements of the contributors do not necessarily represent those of AIPLA and should not be construed as such.
Supreme Court Overturns Oracle Copyright Win Regarding Programming Code, Holds Fair Use
April 5, 2021On April 5, 2021, the US Supreme Court overturned Oracle’s copyright win over Google, holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s programming code from the Java SE Application Programming Interface (API) in their Android platform was a fair use and did not violate copyright laws. The Court determined that Google’s use of only the code that was needed to allow programmers to work in a new and transformative program was a fair use of that material. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Breyer declined to address the first question on copyrightability and instead resolved the case focusing on the question of fair use by referencing the four guiding factors in the Copyright Act’s fair use provision. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion that the ruling bypasses the question of whether the software code is protected by the Copyright Act. AIPLA filed an amicus brief in this case on January 13, 2020.
Letter Submitted to the Office of the US Trade Representative Supporting US Opposition to TRIPS Waiver Proposal
March 30, 2021On March 30, 2021, AIPLA, alongside three other organizations, submitted a letter to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to express support for the United States’ opposition to the TRIPS waiver proposal being discussed at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The letter points out that the TRIPS waiver proposal would waive a variety of IP rights related “to prevention, containment or treatment” of COVID-19. The proposal incorrectly portrays IP as a barrier, but it is expressed, to the contrary, that IP protection enhances developments. The letter states that there are no known examples where IP has been used to limit access to COVID-related technology ‒ rather innovator companies have partnered and shared IP to create tools to address the pandemic. Should the proposed TRIPS waiver be implemented, it is noted that it would have an immediate chilling effect on continued research and necessary collaboration.
AIPLA Comments on the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes
March 26, 2021On March 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments regarding the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes. In the comments, AIPLA requests clarification of handling of patent invalidity challenges, since substantial ambiguity remains. AIPLA requests an 8-month deadline to complete the adjudication in the Draft Measures, and requests extensions of notice periods and filing deadlines. AIPLA also requests that the Draft Measures include a corresponding provision providing that if a case has been accepted by either CNIPA or the People’s Court, any case subsequently filed in the other tribunal shall not be accepted on the same asserted claims. Finally, AIPLA requests that all possible appeals have been resolved or the time within which to appeal has expired without an appeal being filed.
AIPLA Statement Against Violence
March 23, 2021As a community, we stand together in condemning the acts of violence against Asian Americans that have occurred over the past year. Recent events are an awful reminder that much work remains. We must unite to support each other, both personally and professionally, now more than ever. Let us ensure that AIPLA and the entire IP community are places where we listen to and value each other’s experiences and perspectives.
AIPLA Submits Comments in Response to the Discussion Draft of The Digital Copyright Act (“DCA”)
March 22, 2021On March 22, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to Senator Thom Tillis in response to the discussion draft of The Digital Copyright Act (“DCA”) of 2021. AIPLA’s comments largely mirror and reflect AIPLA’s positions expressed on prior occasions, with comments directed to the concepts addressed and not to any specific proposed language. AIPLA’s comments support the concept of advancing the DMCA towards a “notice-and-staydown” regime. AIPLA also advocates further study into the use of a standardized unique identifier that would more effectively identify content.