AIPLA 2020 Annual Meeting
October 22 to 24, 2020
Location
National Harbor, MD
Join a diverse, global community of law firms, companies, and institutions involved in the practice of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and other unfair competition laws at AIPLA's Annual Meeting at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Washington, DC.
Sponsorship Opportunities
News
-
Ninth Circuit Affirms Jim Beam’s Pucker Vodka Trademark Win
June 3, 2020
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2020, affirmed Jim Beam Brand Co’s (Jim Beam) win against a company that accused it of infringing trademarks because the marks in question were dissimilar and customer confusion wasn’t likely. -
Compulife Software Gets Second Chance in Competitor Hacking Case
June 1, 2020
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on May 20, 2020, vacated and remanded a Florida court ruling that found that a group of website operators who hacked into a competitor’s server and database didn’t infringe its source code copyright or misappropriate its proprietary information. -
USPTO Grants Further Relief for Some Patent Fees and Deadlines
May 29, 2020
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on May 27, 2020, further extended the time to file certain patent-related documents and to pay certain required fees under its temporary authority provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). -
USPTO Proposes Rule Changing AIA Trial Rules on Institution and Responsive Briefing
May 28, 2020
The proposed rule provides that if the Board institutes inter partes review, post-grant review, or transitional program for covered business method patents proceedings, trial will proceed on all challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability. -
Man Secures Win in ‘Lawn Managers’ Trademark Case Against Ex-Wife
May 27, 2020
The Eight Circuit on May 20, 2020, awarded a victory in a trademark infringement case to the owner of a Missouri lawn care company against his ex-wife’s lawn care company because her company continued using his mark after their post-divorce licensing agreement expired.