Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: The U.S. Response to China’s Theft and Acquisition of Trade Secrets
January 13, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits Available
There’s been an increase in the number of criminal prosecutions of trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act over the past several years, including the pursuit of those behind state-sponsored cyber intrusions as well as a renewed focus on insider cases involving both private sector companies and academic institutions.
According to a June 2018 report by the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, China's theft of American intellectual property costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually. In late 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division stood up the China Initiative, which aims in part to “identify priority trade secret theft cases, ensure that investigations are adequately resourced, and work to bring them to fruition in a timely manner and according to the facts and applicable law” and “develop an enforcement strategy concerning non-traditional collectors (e.g., researchers in labs, universities and the defense industrial base) that are being coopted into transferring technology contrary to U.S. interests.”
Among the DOJ’s many high-profile indictments under the China Initiative are an 11-count indictment charging two Chinese nationals with stealing trade secrets and intellectual property from several U.S. biotech firms, including potential COVID-19 research, and an indictment of a Harvard University professor regarding his alleged participation in China’s Thousand Talents Program.
Join Crowell & Moring partners Caroline Brown, experienced national security attorney, and Jim Stronski, seasoned trade secrets litigator, to learn:
- The drivers incentivizing trade secret theft;
- Enforcement trends in China-related criminal trade secret cases;
- Other mechanisms the U.S. government uses to combat foreign acquisition and theft of trade secrets;
- How China’s commitments in the 2020-China Phase One trade agreement impact trade secret protection;
- What these developments mean for companies operating in the U.S. and China; and
- Best practices to help protect your company’s trade secrets.
This event is free to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLE. Standard webinar pricing applies to those requesting CLE. CLE is included for our All Access Pass holders and Corporate Subscribers.
Pricing below only applies to those requesting CLE
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 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.