How to Up Your Wardrobe Game for Zoom

AIPLA/ChIPs Joint Virtual Event - How To Up Your Wardrobe Game for Zoom

February 9, 2021 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM




Fee: free

Register Now

Video meetings all day. Working from home and managing the rest of your life at the same time. Even though life is crazy, step away from the sweats! You know the right clothing can foster confidence. It can help you feel strong and project an executive presence. But how the heck do you do that for Zoom? Nancy will share practical strategies and tips for dressing to up your Zoom game and to feel better overall.
Learn more about Nancy and her work at


Nancy DiltsAt Nancy Dilts Wardrobe Consulting, Nancy brings together her passions – personal style, positive body image, and the environment – to help her clients feel great about how they look, using an economically and environmentally sustainable approach. She offers services in personal styling, wardrobe consults, and personal shopping, and is available for presentations on developing personal style, creating a more functional wardrobe, dressing for work and other specific style topics, building a sustainable wardrobe, and more. Nancy works with people of all genders and identities in person in the Twin Cities metro region and virtually. Before launching NDWC, Nancy spent close to 20 years working in the field of environmental education and community outreach, and she holds an MA in Environmental and Resource Policy.


This event is hosted by the AIPLA Women in IP Law Committee and the Minneapolis Chapter of ChIPs.



Add to:




  • China (1) Web AIPLA Comments on Draft Implementation Rules of the Chinese Patent Law

    January 10, 2021

    The 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.
  • Education_650x200 AIPLA Comments on Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines

    January 8, 2021

    AIPLA 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.
  • QJ_Patent AIPLA Congratulates Lisa K. Jorgenson on her appointment as a Deputy Director General at WIPO

    December 6, 2020

    On 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
  • USPTO Main Entrance AIPLA Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    December 3, 2020

    AIPLA 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. ​
  • Supreme Court 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, 2020

    AIPLA’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.