Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Design Patent Priority: 112 Support for Continuing and Amended Design Patent Claims
July 14, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits
This webinar will focus on recent issues and new developments relating to written support in design patents. Topics will include the level of drawing identity, consistency and written description for amended claims as well as requirements for design applications claiming priority to utility applications. The current USPTO position and recent caselaw and ex parte decisions will be discussed, including validity challenges, design patent reissue cases, and tips for preparing new applications.
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
Special rate for AIPLA STUDENT MEMBERS: $10
- 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 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.
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.
USPTO Appoints David Berdan as General Counsel
November 10, 2020As General Counsel, Mr. Berdan will serve as the principal legal advisor to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. Mr. Berdan will also supervise the Office of General Counsel and its three component offices: the Office of the Solicitor, the Office of General Law, and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. Over the past 25 years, Mr. Berdan has served in a variety of important legal positions, most recently, as General Counsel and Compliance Officer of Gaming Arts. Mr. Berdan will begin his new role at the USPTO on Monday, November 16.
USPTO Released Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines
October 14, 2020On October 9, The USPTO published a notice seeking public input on proposed guidelines regarding continuing legal education (CLE). As we noted in an earlier notice, the final rule published on August 3, 2020, will require beginning March 1, 2022, that registered patent practitioners and individuals granted limited recognition to practice before the USPTO in patent matters, biennially submit a mandatory registration statement.
Supreme Court Will Decide If PTAB Violates Appointments Clause
October 13, 2020On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as created by the AIA, violates the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The Court granted certiorari in three consolidated cases (United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. 19-1434; Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., 19-1452; and Arthrex, Inc., v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., 19-1458), but limited its review to two specific questions