Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Novelties About Novelty and Obviousness Even for Experienced Patent Prosecutors
January 28, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits Available
This webinar is part three of a five part series that draws a metaphoric bow from patent eligibility via examination and appeal, to post-grant proceedings and litigation. The articles and rules of the respective laws lead to practical examples and stories illustrating the hurdles a prosecutor in each jurisdiction has to overcome. The speakers have over 50 years of combined experience and will present the latest developments designed to keep even the most experienced practitioners on their toes. The speakers will also share their experiences and provide concrete examples for attendees.
Part 1 of the series deals with patent eligibility and Part 2 shows the intensively discussed fields of enablement and clarity. Our present Part 3 of the series will take you into the core of patent prosecution: novelty, obviousness and costs. Part 4 will cover the issues of post grant proceedings and re-examinations. We will close our series with Part 5 dedicated to various litigation aspects.
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 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 Submits Joint Letter to House of Representatives Expressing Concern Regarding Resource Appropriation for USPTO
December 6, 2021On December 1, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) submitted a joint letter to House Committee members Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, Chair Cartwright, and Ranking Member Aderholt expressing concern regarding resources appropriated to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in FY 2022. The joint letter urged the House to pass a funding measure that reflects the intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to fund the USPTO at a level equal to fee collection estimates.
AIPLA Urges Senate to Confirm Katherine (Kathi) Vidal as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO
November 30, 2021On November 30, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted a letter to Chair Richard J. Durbin and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in support of Katherine (Kathi) Vidal’s nomination of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The letter outlined components of the set of criteria that AIPLA used to address the needed qualifications for an individual appointed to serve as the leader of the USPTO, concluding that Ms. Vidal possesses such qualifications.
USPTO Announces Delay of Patent Filing Fee for Non-DOCX Applications
November 22, 2021The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a final rule to delay the effective date of the non-DOCX filing fee for an additional calendar year, until January 1, 2023. The fee adjustment would apply to any nonprovisional utility patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, including any continuing application, that is not filed in DOCX format. The USPTO noted that this delay allows applicants additional time to adjust to filing patent applications in the new format and also enables the USPTO to conduct further testing of its systems. AIPLA was at the fore of expressing concern to the USPTO about requiring patent applications to be filed exclusively in a DOCX format, noting the potentially significant impact on its members and the system.
AIPLA Submits Joint Letter to House Committee on Ways and Means Regarding Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights at the Border
November 10, 2021On November 10, 2021, AIPLA, alongside nine other entities, joined on a letter to House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Ranking Member Kevin Brady regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights at the border. The letter expressed concern with the flow of counterfeit goods across the United States border, calling for stronger, more effective trade enforcement and information sharing with the private sector. The letter encouraged support for pending legislation, including key provisions which will clarify CBP’s ability to share information with rights holders.
AIPLA Submits Comments to U.S. Copyright Office Pursuant to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Related to CASE Act Regulations
November 10, 2021On November 10, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to CASE Act regulations. Comments provided included support for requiring claimants to provide contact information in the initial notice form and support for charging filing fees for counterclaims. A staggered fee structure was again suggested, and support was provided for an initial notice in a form that includes information required by the statute and additional basic information. An opt-out mechanism for claimants who receive a counterclaim was not supported, and concern was expressed regarding implementation of a mechanism whereby a respondent who has opted out of a CCB proceeding can change their mind and opt back in.