Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
In This Section
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Year In Review: Trademark, Trade Secret, Patent, Copyright, Design Rights
April 14, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits Available
Presented by: Garfield Goodrum of Garfield Goodrum Design Law; Roy Isaac of Allergan; Mary Mazzelo of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Justin DeAngelis of Quarles & Brady, LLP; and Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden, LLP
Moderated by: Erin Ogden of Ogden Glazer & Schaefer
Sponsored by: Western Union
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
Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS: $65
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.
- 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 Statement on the US Administration’s Decision on Waiver of IP Protections
May 6, 2021AIPLA echoes the significant concerns shared by many other intellectual property entities about the Administration’s decision to support the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s proposed waiver of IP protections for COVID-19 vaccines. AIPLA continues to support the widespread distribution of vaccines, medicines, and other measures necessary to meet the challenges of COVID-19, however, we are concerned that the waiver approach is unlikely to lead to the desired result of widespread access to high-quality vaccines produced by qualified manufacturers and will negatively impact further innovation. AIPLA believes this decision has the potential to set an unfortunate precedent going forward.
AIPLA Submits Comments on Notification of Inquiry Regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations
April 26, 2021On April 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on Notification of Inquiry regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations. As a general matter, AIPLA believes that it is important to keep the procedures as straight forward and accessible as possible to ensure this will be a new, simple, and low-cost process to resolve small copyright claims. AIPLA encourages the Copyright Claims Board to publish standardized forms and instructions. Additionally, AIPLA is in favor of providing a Second Notice through the U.S. Postal Service. For ease of delivery, AIPLA is in favor of a Designated Agent directory. Online submission of opt-out notices should be encouraged, but a paper option is also recommended. To strike an appropriate balance of discovery, AIPLA recommends that the CCB require a standardized, initial disclosure of relevant information.
Supreme Court Overturns Oracle Copyright Win Regarding Programming Code, Holds Fair Use
April 5, 2021On April 5, 2021, the US Supreme Court overturned Oracle’s copyright win over Google, holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s programming code from the Java SE Application Programming Interface (API) in their Android platform was a fair use and did not violate copyright laws. The Court determined that Google’s use of only the code that was needed to allow programmers to work in a new and transformative program was a fair use of that material. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Breyer declined to address the first question on copyrightability and instead resolved the case focusing on the question of fair use by referencing the four guiding factors in the Copyright Act’s fair use provision. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion that the ruling bypasses the question of whether the software code is protected by the Copyright Act. AIPLA filed an amicus brief in this case on January 13, 2020.
Letter Submitted to the Office of the US Trade Representative Supporting US Opposition to TRIPS Waiver Proposal
March 30, 2021On March 30, 2021, AIPLA, along with IPO, LES USA and Canada, and the NY IP Law Association, submitted a letter to the Office of the US Trade Representative to express support for the United States’ opposition to the TRIPS waiver proposal being discussed at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The letter points out that the TRIPS waiver proposal would waive a variety of IP rights related “to prevention, containment or treatment” of COVID-19. The proposal incorrectly portrays IP as a barrier, but it is expressed, to the contrary, that IP protection enhances developments. The letter states that there are no known examples where IP has been used to limit access to COVID-related technology ‒ rather innovator companies have partnered and shared IP to create tools to address the pandemic. Should the proposed TRIPS waiver be implemented, it is noted that it would have an immediate chilling effect on continued research and necessary collaboration.
AIPLA Comments on the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes
March 26, 2021On March 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments regarding the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes. In the comments, AIPLA requests clarification of handling of patent invalidity challenges, since substantial ambiguity remains. AIPLA requests an 8-month deadline to complete the adjudication in the Draft Measures, and requests extensions of notice periods and filing deadlines. AIPLA also requests that the Draft Measures include a corresponding provision providing that if a case has been accepted by either CNIPA or the People’s Court, any case subsequently filed in the other tribunal shall not be accepted on the same asserted claims. Finally, AIPLA requests that all possible appeals have been resolved or the time within which to appeal has expired without an appeal being filed.