Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
In This Section
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Inequitable Conduct Lives!
November 3, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
1.5 ETHICS CLE Credits Available
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.
The 2021 Report of the Economic Survey is Here!
September 22, 2021The survey examines the economic aspects of intellectual property law practice, including individual billing rates and typical charges for representative IP law services.
AIPLA Submits Comments Regarding the Draft Revision to the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines (Draft for Solicitation of Comments)
September 21, 2021On September 21, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) regarding the Draft Revision to the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines (Draft for Solicitation of Comments). AIPLA provided comments and suggestions on more than fifteen guidelines outlined in a table format for readability. With respect to patent term compensation due to unreasonable delay at the CNIPA, drug patent term extension, and open license, in addition to seeking various classifications, AIPLA submitted a number of suggestions.
UNICOLORS, INC., v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Docket No. 20-915, amicus brief filed 8/10/2021
August 10, 2021On August 10, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Unicolors, Inc., v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (Case No. 20-915). The brief notes that the Ninth Circuit decision in the case increases the risk to copyright owners in that any erroneous legal conclusions set forth in a copyright application may have draconian repercussions, and if upheld, will likely increase the costs and burdens of copyright litigation. Two courses of action are suggested, including reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and recognizing the inherent power of district court judges to determine whether an allegation that a registrant has knowingly included inaccurate facts is reasonably plausible before referring a case to the Register of Copyrights.
AIPLA Submits Joint Letter Expressing Concern About USPTO Funding in FY 2022
July 29, 2021On July 29, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) submitted a joint letter to Senators Leahy, Shaheen, Tillis, and Moran expressing concern over resources appropriated to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in FY 2022. The letter asserted that it is imperative for the USPTO to receive access to all its fees, urging passage of a funding measure that reflects the intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to fund the USPTO at a level equal to fee collection estimates.
EZAKI GLICO CO. v. LOTTE INTERNATIONAL AMERICA CORP., Docket No. 20-1817, amicus brief filed 7/29/2021
July 29, 2021On July 29, 2021, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Ezaki Glico Co. v. Lotte International America Corp. (Case No. 20-1817). The brief addresses the Third Circuit’s conclusion that product design trade dress is functional, and therefore not protectable, if it is “useful.” The brief also questions the Third Circuit’s displacement of what remained of the traditional rule with principles of the separate doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Moreover, because trade dress is typically associated with ubiquitous products (especially the trade dress that is copied), it is likely that a trade dress owner would be forced to defend its trade dress in the Third Circuit under the new rule.