AIPLA Virtual Water Cooler - July Meetup

July 14, 2021 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Location

Virtual

Registration

Fee: Free

Register Now


Join us at the July Virtual Water Cooler!
Drop by for our casual meetup that lets you catch up with old colleagues and friends while making new ones.


Based on member feedback, we're continuing our Virtual Water Cooler through the summer!  We know that we as continue in large measure to work-from-home, we're still missing the regular connection with our colleagues.  That’s why AIPLA’s Committee on the Profession is inviting you to join us around the virtual water cooler for a 30 minute break.

This is an opportunity to say hello to people you may (or may not) know for a few minutes, and see IP colleagues much as you would at the office water cooler. Nothing to do in advance except register, and we are doing that simply so no one gets Zoom-bombed. 

This is free and open both to AIPLA members and non-members interested in IP (feel free to share this invite to others in IP), but sorry - you will have to bring your own water.


Add to:

 

 

News

  • TMAcmts-7-19-logo AIPLA Submits Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020

    July 19, 2021

    On July 19, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) of 2020. The comments addressed seven aspects of the NPRM: (1) ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings; (2) the petition filing fee; (3) the identification of the real party in interest in a petition; (4) flexible response periods; (5) letters of protest; (6) attorney recognition; and (7) the proposed burden hours for private sector respondents.
  • Minerva-6-9-21-logo Supreme Court Rules to Keep the Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel in Minerva v. Hologic

    June 29, 2021

    On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the doctrine of assignor estoppel, but with limits on its application. This ruling is consistent with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on March 1, 2021.
  • Arthrex-Direct-logo Supreme Court Reverses and Vacates Federal Circuit in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    June 21, 2021

    On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Federal Circuit decision, dividing 5-4 on the judgment in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. In this majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) during inter partes review is constitutionally incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
  • EndorseTC-6-15-logo AIPLA Endorses Nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    June 15, 2021

    On June 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a letter to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin and the Honorable Charles L. Grassley, Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter supported the nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham, President Biden's nominee for Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AIPLA wrote that Ms. Cunningham’s background and professional experience demonstrate that she is qualified to serve in that position, and that she would make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit.
  • 1800Contacts-6-21-logo U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Vacates Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission in 1-800 Contacts Case

    June 11, 2021

    On June 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), finding that 1-800 Contact’s “typical trademark settlement agreements” did not unreasonably restrain trade in violation the Section 5 of the FTC Act given the lack of direct evidence of an anticompetitive effect and the strong procompetitive justification of protecting 1-800 Contract’s trademarks. The Court of Appeals also found that it did not have sufficient experience with the type of conduct at issue to permit the abbreviated antitrust analysis favored by the Commission, applying a full-blown rule of reason analysis instead. The Court remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to dismiss it.