The IP Casebriefs Podcast

A news-based podcast series that briefly covers current events in patents, trademarks, copyrights, and the rest of intellectual property.




#003: USPTO Fee Setting Proposal Reactions (9/10/2019)

As the IP community digests the USPTO's proposal to adjust patent-related fees, we met with two experts,  Kenneth Nigon and Angela Sebor, to discuss their reactions to the proposed changes. 

This summer the USPTO published a proposal to adjust patent-related fees and the reaction has been mixed. With a few exceptions, existing fees are increased in the range of 5% to 10%. Other notable proposed fees include the request for expedited examination of a design application, which would jump from $900 to $2,000; a new “Non-DOCX Filing Surcharge” of $400; a $250 fee for non-registered practitioners to appear before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and an “annual active patent practitioner fee” of $340 without CLE, $240 with CLE, or $70 voluntarily inactive fee.

Hosted by Gary Lee, produced by Kemahl Franklyn. 





#002: Iancu v. Brunetti (6/18/2019)


AIPLA Podcast Network's Mike Cushman is joined by Ted Davis, partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, to discuss the Iancu v. Brunetti case. 

The US Supreme Court, on April 15, heard arguments over whether it should permit the registration of “scandalous” or profane trademarks, a move which critics say would be unconstitutional. 

The case is an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which in 2017 overturned a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and approved registration for the ‘Fuct’ mark.

The USPTO refused registration for the mark on the grounds that it was immoral or scandalous under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This provision, also known as the disparagement clause, prohibits registration of trademarks covering “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter”. 

The Supreme Court will now rule on whether this clause is in breach of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech.

Produced by Kemahl Franklyn.





#001: FTC v. Qualcomm

AIPLA Podcast Network's Gary Lee is joined by David W. Long, founder of Essential Patent LLC, to discuss the FTC v. Qualcomm case.

Produced by Kemahl Franklyn.


Upcoming Events

  • China’s Shifting IP Landscape and the Consequences for Rights Holders

    November 20, 2019 10:00 AM to 4:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time)

    Please save the date for this day-long roundtable on China Intellectual Property Law Developments. The event will bring together experts from academia, industry, and government to discuss implications of China’s rapid economic and innovation developments as well as recent changes in China’s intellectual property laws and practices and what they mean for U.S. businesses.
  • AIPLA CLE Webinar: Impact of SAS/Claim Construction Phillips/Discretionary Institution at the PTAB

    December 3, 2019 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time)   |   1.5 CLE Credits

    This webinar will address the impacts of dramatic changes occurring at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has issued numerous precedential decisions, courts continue to grapple with the interplay between agency proceedings and district court litigation, and the Office continues to refine its procedures and reliance on discretionary factors in decision-making. Together, these developments create a rapidly evolving area of law. This webinar will focus on the impact of these recent changes for PTAB practitioners and district court litigators alike.
  • AIPLA on the Road: The Latest on Patent Practice Before the USPTO and the PTAB - Boston

    December 10, 2019   |   375 Minutes

    This single-day conference will give you the most up-to-date information on patent practice before the USPTO and the PTAB.
  • AIPLA CLE Webinar: Constitutionality of Protecting Product Designs Both as Design Patents and as Trade Dress

    December 10, 2019 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time)   |   1.5 CLE Credits

    Traditionally, product designs have been protected both as design patents and trade dress. But should different intellectual property law regimes protect the same features of a product consecutively or even concurrently? Both the Constitution's Patent/Copyright Clause (Art. I//8/8) and its Commerce Clause (Art. 1/8/3) probably can provide such protection. But can they both really coexist? Ken Germain asserts that the PC Cl. trumps the Commerce Cl., so that only one type of IP protection is available; Rich Stockton asserts that coexistence is allowable and appropriate. A spirted collegial debate will ensue!
  • Legal Secretaries & Administrators Conference

    December 16 to 17, 2019

    This two-day conference, which has been a cooperative effort with AIPLA and the United States Patent & Trademark Office, for 40 years, is an ongoing outreach program that debuted in 1979. It is the premiere source of help and information for hundreds of office administrators, paralegals, and legal secretaries.