AIPLA Virtual Water Cooler - August Meetup

August 17, 2022 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Location

Virtual

Registration

Fee: Free
Registration closes August 17, 2022 at 12:00 AM

Register Now


Join us at the Virtual Water Cooler!


Drop by for our casual meetup that lets you catch up with old colleagues and friends while making new ones.


AIPLA’s Committee on the Profession is inviting you to join us around the virtual water cooler for a short break in your day.

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.

3:00 PM Eastern | 2:00 PM Central | 1:00 PM Pacific

Add to:

 

 

News

  • AIPLA Issues Statement on Senator Thom Tillis's Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022

    September 30, 2022

    ARLINGTON, Virginia, August 3, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) released the following statement on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022 introduced by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC):
  • AIPLA Issues Statement Following the Passing of Former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters

    September 30, 2022

    ARLINGTON, VA. September 30, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) released the following statement in response to the passing of former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters on September 29, 2022
  • AIPLA Files Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC

    September 21, 2022

    Arlington, VA. September 16, 2022,- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Certiorari currently pending before the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148. The decision below, decided by the Ninth Circuit, involved the unauthorized use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product that purportedly parodied the Jack Daniel’s brand. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the dog toys infringed its rights under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects all “humorous” or parodic uses of others’ trademarks regardless of the nature of the underlying product, becoming the first court to apply such protections outside of Lanham Act disputes involving artistic works.
  • Washington DC Autumn Panorama AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order

    September 7, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 26, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the proposed pilot program for instituting a Final Pretrial Conference (PFC) requirement in certain TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings. Overall, AIPLA supports the pilot program to give the TTAB an opportunity to evaluate its potential effectiveness, recognizing the burden placed on TTAB Administrative Judges and staff when cases with large records are presented for decision. Therefore, AIPLA supports the TTAB in studying and evaluating ways to make these cases more efficient.
  • EPO Building AIPLA Files Comments on China’s Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition

    August 24, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 24, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments on Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition issued by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (Draft Provisions).  The comments point out that AIPLA generally believes intellectual property rights (IPR) should not be enforced beyond their effective term limits, given the efficient market realities of portfolio licensing, but recommends the Draft Provisions explicitly permit parties to establish license agreements that license an entire portfolio of IPR, notwithstanding the fact that certain IPRs may expire or be found invalid during the term of an agreement.