Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Comparison of Patent Prosecution Practices at the USPTO and the EPO
April 30, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits
There are many differences between patent prosecution practice before the USPTO and patent prosecution practice before the EPO.
In many situations, these differences are significant and impact the patent application drafting process. Furthermore, these differences are often dynamic and vary not just between the drafting processes in each of the jurisdictions, but also within each jurisdiction!
Some of these differences are rooted in ever-changing patent law; others are rooted in each jurisdiction’s idiosyncrasies. For instance, the standards for determining subject matter eligibility may change not only within each jurisdiction, but also from one jurisdiction to another.
This webinar provides a review of some of the differences between the practice before the USPTO and before the EPO. The webinar also attempts to provide some guidance to patent prosecutors to avoid prosecution pitfalls in both jurisdictions.
Presented by: Malgorzata Kulczycka of Hickman Palermo Becker and Bingham LLP, and Eric-Michael Dokter of VJP mbB, Germany, and VJP LLP.
In response to Covid-19, AIPLA has put in-place a new process for Multiple Attendee Site registrations that allows each site registrant to participate in the webinar independently.
Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS: $65
- For multiple-attendee sites, each registered participant will receive individual logins due to Covid-19 social distancing requirements.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
AIPLA Comments on Draft Implementation Rules of the Chinese Patent Law
January 10, 2021The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Implementation Rules of the Chinese Patent Law. Attached is a table listing our detailed comments, some of which are also summarized in the file download section.
AIPLA Comments on Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines
January 8, 2021AIPLA 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.
AIPLA Congratulates Lisa K. Jorgenson on her appointment as a Deputy Director General at WIPO
December 6, 2020On December 3, 2020 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Director General Daren Tang announced the newly appointed Deputy Directors General and Assistant Directors General, including former AIPLA Executive Director Lisa K. Jorgenson who will serve as Deputy Director General, Patents and Technology Center. Ms. Jorgenson will assume her new duties beginning January 1, 2021. For more information about WIPO, please visit www.wipo.int
AIPLA Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
December 3, 2020AIPLA filed a response to the USPTO’s October 20, 2020 request for comments on discretion to institute trials in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The USPTO’s request solicits input on whether rulemaking is necessary and the type of rules it should adopt, but does not propose any rules.
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, 2020AIPLA’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.