PTAB LEAP Oral Hearing Boot Camp
August 20 to September 17, 2021
Location
Credits
No CLE
Registration
The PTAB’s Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP) is designed to encourage new oral advocacy opportunities for patent attorneys and agents that have three or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal (including PTAB) and seven or fewer years of experience as a licensed attorney or agent. The program allows PTAB judges to grant up to 15 minutes additional argument time, upon request for oral hearing participation by a LEAP-eligible practitioner.
In furtherance of the LEAP initiative, the PTAB and AIPLA are jointly organizing an oral hearing virtual boot camp in which practitioners will be able to present an argument before sitting PTAB judges and obtain invaluable feedback post-argument. The boot camp will be held mainly on Fridays beginning August 20. The current schedule is below:
- August 20, 2021, time TBD: Information session for participants, with details regarding mock argument logistics & PTAB oral hearing practice tip
- September 8, 2021, 10am – 11am ET: (Optional) LEAP Office Hours
- September 8, 2021, 12pm – 1pm ET: Panel discussion “The Night Before Argument: Preparing for your AIA argument” (this session will be open to the public)
- September 10, 2021, 1pm – 4pm ET: AIPLA/LEAP AIA Trials Mock Argument
- September 17, 2021, 12pm – 1pm ET: AIA Oral Argument Encore, in which experienced practitioners argue the same case (this session will be open to the public)
News
-
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. -
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.
