Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
In This Section
AIPLA CLE Webinar: What to Do If Your Claims Have Been Rejected Again? - How to Appeal and Win in the USPTO and EPO
June 17, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 CLE Credits Available
Patent prosecution is often challenging and unpredictable. And that may be for a variety of reasons. For example, the Patent Office may keep rejecting the claims citing the references that an applicant finds irrelevant or insufficient. After a few rounds of prosecution, the applicant may reach a conclusion that an appeal is the only reasonable option, especially after a patent application has been repeatedly rejected. The right time for an appeal may be when the applicant exhausted all other easier options and have tried to compromise as much as possible with the patent examiner.
In this webinar, the authors will address several options for appealing the final rejections in the USPTO and the EPO. Furthermore, the authors will provide some guidance for selecting the mechanism that fits best the client’s expectation and the client’s business situation.
Sponsored by: Relativity Patents
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 Stands for Equality and Inclusivity, Now and Always
June 8, 2021Last June, the Association wrote an open letter to the AIPLA community in response to the killing of George Floyd and others. This March, we again published a statement to condemn acts of violence against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. It is therefore with a profound sense of frustration and sadness that we must again address acts of hate.
AIPLA Submits Comments on Proposed Administrative Updates to the General Requirements Bulletin
May 24, 2021On May 24, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the Director for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the proposed administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin (GRB). The comments made were in support of the proposal to add the common Category B categories to Category A to reflect current and anticipated patenting activity, and of the proposal to amend Category B, Options 2 and 4, to permit a combination of courses that need not be sequential. AIPLA also advised considering the addition of degrees matching emerging technical fields on a regular basis and supports the inclusion of master’s and doctoral degrees as acceptable under the requirements of Category A.
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.