AIPLA Direct, LIVE

Home

 

 

In This Section

Free for Members: AIPLA Direct Live - Buyer Beware: DOCX Filing is Coming to a Computer Near You!

May 22, 2020 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM

Registration

Fee: Free for Members!

Register Now

Member-benefit exclusive! 
No CLE credit available. 

Friday, May 22nd at 12:30 pm EDT


Electronically filing a patent application with the USPTO is about to change.  Many applicants currently electronically file a PDF of a patent application that the inventors have reviewed.  Once reviewed, the application should not be changed before filling, right?  In the near future, you will need to file applications via the “Patent Center” in a DOCX format, or pay a $400 fee on top of the filing fees.  Did the inventors review the DOCX version of the application? Do you need to change your internal drafting and review processes?  Are you using application drafting tools that result in a DOCX version that will not be changed upon submitting it to the USPTO? 

We will provide some important tips to enable you to safely file applications in DOCX format without risking your license to practice law or having your insurance company freak out.


Presented by:
Brad Forrest, Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Kasie Grover, Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A

 

Add to:

 

 

News

  • TermDisc-Comments-March21-logo AIPLA Comments on CNIPA Draft Measures for Prioritized Patent Examination

    April 1, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 30, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) regarding the Draft Measures for the Administration of Prioritized Examination of Patents.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc

    March 31, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 27, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889. AIPLA urges the Court to affirm the Federal Circuit’s application of the established Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard and inducement law in reviewing Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s claim that Hikma’s conduct, in combination with its “skinny label,” induced infringement of Amarin’s patented treatment methods.
  • Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

    March 25, 2026

    On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The majority opinion limits contributory liability to situations where a party intended that its service be used for infringement, either by affirmatively inducing infringement or by selling a service tailored to infringement. A concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor argues that the material contribution test should be retained, and that other forms of secondary liability can be found, which is consistent with the position asserted by AIPLA in its amicus brief filed on September 5, 2025. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here.
  • Writing AIPLA Comments on the Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

    March 23, 2026

    Arlington, VA. February 9, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress regarding the latest Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. AIPLA recognized the NPC’s efforts to streamline trademark procedures, strengthen protection, and address abusive and bad-faith filing practices.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in USAA v. PNC Bank

    March 3, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 2, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in USAA v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 25-853, in support of USAA’s petition for certiorari, urging the Court to provide much-needed guidance to address the unpredictable and overly broad application of the judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly the “abstract idea” exception.