2023 AM IP Practice in Japan Pre-Meeting - National Harbor, MD
October 17 to 18, 2023
Location
National Harbor, MD, USA
Contact
Registration
IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting and Dinner
(This Pre-Meeting is Currently SOLD OUT!)
The Pre-Meeting is open to all and is a great event for networking with colleagues from Japan. There is an additional cost to attend the Reception and Dinner for IP Practice in Japan Committee Tentative: Fogo de Chao Restaurant, at 6:30 pm on Tuesday, October 17.
Day 1 - Registration and breakfast begin at 8:00 am. Sessions run from 9 am - 12 noon and 1 - 5 pm, with a luncheon from 12 noon - 1 pm.Day 2 - Registration and breakfast begin at 8:00 am. Sessions run from 9 am - 12 noon.
Presentations will be provided by the speakers from AIPLA, the Japan Patent Attorney Association (JPAA), and possibly from the International Association for the Protection of the Intellectual Property in Japan (AIPPI-J), Japan Trademark Association (JTA) and Japan Patent Office (JPO) on a range of topics such as:
1. US: Subject Matter Eligibility - Recent Updates
2. US: PTAB - Developments and Strategies
3. US: SCOTUS Review - Recent Cases and What is Coming Up
4. US: Recent Developments on Trademark Law and Practice
5. Japan: Recent IP High Court Decisions
6. Japan: Post-Grant Opposition Updates
7. Japan: Update on Examination Standards
8. Japan: Recent Developments on Trademark Law and Practice
*Note: Topics are subject to change.
IP Practice in Japan Committee Leadership and Program Coordinators: Co-Chair Don Studebaker and Kevin Kunzendorf
Program Registration: $295
Dinner Registration: $195
Note: Pre-Meeting Attendees are expected to also register for the 2023 Annual Meeting.
Thank you to the sponsors for this event!
Add to:
News
-
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
June 4, 2026
On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. While the Court reaffirmed existing law on pleading standards, it reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision that had focused on how relevant statements could be understood by medical providers as instructions to infringe. The amicus brief filed by AIPLA on March 27, 2026, advocated for affirmance and cautioned the Court not to change the patent infringement pleading standard or adopt any categorical exemption from inducement for a particular industry. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to the USPTO on 2026 Supplemental GUI Guidance
May 15, 2026
Arlington, VA. May 12, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on its Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons, issued on March 13, 2026. -
AIPLA Comments on the Copyright Office's Proposed Fee Schedule Adjustment
May 8, 2026
Arlington, VA. May 1, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on adjustments to its fee schedule. -
AIPLA Submits Comments on the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s 11 Preliminary Opinion in G 1/25
May 1, 2026
Arlington, VA. April 17, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments on the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s 11 March 2026 preliminary opinion in G 1/25, addressing whether patent descriptions must be adapted following claim amendments. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.
April 20, 2026
Arlington, VA — April 17, 2026 — The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., No. 23-2427, supporting rehearing and rehearing en banc. AIPLA urges the Court to restore clarity to design patent law by (1) reaffirming that Gorham v. White (1871) provides the sole governing test for infringement and forecloses any separate “plainly dissimilar” threshold, and (2) confirming that claim construction may not be used to exclude any visual portions of the overall claimed design.