Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

Home

 

 

In This Section

AIPLA Rapid Response Webinar: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.: Hear from the Experts

April 21, 2021 12:30 PM to 1:45 PM

Registration

Fee: Member-benefit exclusive! Limited CLE

Register Now

Member-benefit exclusive!  CLE credit is available on a limited basis. 

AIPLA is pleased to bring you a webinar on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956 (April 5, 2021). We will be joined by counsel for the parties to the case, Thomas C. Goldstein, counsel for Google, and E. Joshua Rosenkranz, counsel for Oracle. Jennifer Librach Nall, counsel for amicus AIPLA, will participate, and the panel will be moderated by Brian Wassom, Chair of AIPLA Copyright Law Committee. This expert panel will provide an overview of the decision, the positions of the parties and amici, and thoughts on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision and what it may mean for you and your clients. Whether you are a copyright practitioner, a patent practitioner, a software developer or implementer, or you practice in a related area, you won’t want to miss out on this informative session.
 
Presented by: Jennifer Nall of Baker Botts, Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, and Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick. Moderated by: Brian Wassom of Warner Norcross & Judd
 

Sponsored by: Western Union


This event is FREE to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLE.
Limited CLE is available and standard webinar pricing applies to those requesting CLE for the listed states. 
CLE is included for our All Access Pass holders and Corporate Subscribers for the states listed below.

Pricing is for those requesting CLE in the states listed below.

Member Registration:  $99
Solo Practice/Small Firm Members:  $65

CLE credit for this webinar is only available for the following states:

  • Alaska
  • California
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont

ATTENTION attorneys in Pennsylvania:
This state mandate attorneys can only view a webinar independently at their own computer to receive CLE credit.  Multiple attendees prohibited.


Cancellation Policy:

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. 

System requirements: 

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 cle@aipla.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.

 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.




 

Add to:

 

 

News

  • TermDisc-Comments-March21-logo AIPLA Comments on CNIPA Draft Measures for Prioritized Patent Examination

    April 1, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 30, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) regarding the Draft Measures for the Administration of Prioritized Examination of Patents.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc

    March 31, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 27, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889. AIPLA urges the Court to affirm the Federal Circuit’s application of the established Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard and inducement law in reviewing Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s claim that Hikma’s conduct, in combination with its “skinny label,” induced infringement of Amarin’s patented treatment methods.
  • Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

    March 25, 2026

    On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The majority opinion limits contributory liability to situations where a party intended that its service be used for infringement, either by affirmatively inducing infringement or by selling a service tailored to infringement. A concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor argues that the material contribution test should be retained, and that other forms of secondary liability can be found, which is consistent with the position asserted by AIPLA in its amicus brief filed on September 5, 2025. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here.
  • Writing AIPLA Comments on the Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

    March 23, 2026

    Arlington, VA. February 9, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress regarding the latest Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. AIPLA recognized the NPC’s efforts to streamline trademark procedures, strengthen protection, and address abusive and bad-faith filing practices.
  • AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in USAA v. PNC Bank

    March 3, 2026

    Arlington, VA. March 2, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in USAA v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 25-853, in support of USAA’s petition for certiorari, urging the Court to provide much-needed guidance to address the unpredictable and overly broad application of the judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly the “abstract idea” exception.