The IP Casebriefs Podcast

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


#006: Discussing the Case, Part 2

AIPLA filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. B.V., No. 19-46, a case addressing whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark. 


In part two of a two-part series, we hear from Craig B. Whitney, a partner in the Frankfurt Kurnit litigation group and the author of AIPLA's recent amicus brief in this case. In part 1, we heard from Rebeccah Gan, a Partner at Wenderoth, on why she disagreed with AIPLA's adopted position.


Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn.




#005: Discussing the Case, Part 1

AIPLA filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. B.V., No. 19-46, a case addressing whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.


In part one of a two-part series, we hear from Rebeccah Gan, a Partner at Wenderoth, on why she disagrees with AIPLA's adopted position. 


In part two, we'll hear from Craig B. Whitney, a partner in the Frankfurt Kurnit litigation group and the author of AIPLA's recent amicus brief in this case.


Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn.



Waymo v Uber

#004: Waymo v. Uber

Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer who was at the center of a trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on theft of trade secrets. This criminal indictment is the latest twist in a years-long dispute over intellectual property between Google, where Levandowski worked on autonomous vehicles for nearly a decade, and Uber, which purchased a self-driving startup from Levandowski for a reported $680m in August 2016.

Here to talk to us about the Waymo v. Uber case is Diane Siegel Danoff. Diane is a nationally recognized litigator and heads Dechert LLP global trade secret litigation practice. 

Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn.




#003: USPTO Fee Setting Proposal Reactions

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


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


1.5 CLE Credits Available


Fee: No Fee to attend for AIPLA members. There is a fee for CLE processing.

Register Now

It has been almost two years since the Supreme Court decision in Helsinn on whether private sales by an inventor more than one-year before the first filing date remain prior art after the AIA. District courts have started to grapple with the impact of Helsinn on related question about on-sale prior art and are coming up with different answers for different fact patterns: What if the sale is by the inventor, but less than one year before the effective filing date?  What if the sale is a private sale of a prototype to the inventor, not by the inventor?  What if the sale is a private sale by a third party before the effective filing date, and what if that third party is later a defendant in an infringement suit? If the private sale is only an offer for sale, who makes the invention “ready for patenting” in order to qualify as being on sale?  And, what if any of these fact patterns need to be submitted to the USPTO to satisfy your duty of candor, and, if you do need to submit something, how do you accomplish that submission and still protect the confidentiality of your client’s private communications. Learn from the authors of the Prior Art After the AIA Guidebook how to spot these kinds of on sale issues, and how to do your best to avoid having one backfire on you or your clients.

Presented by:  Brad Pederson of Patterson Thuente Pederson, P.A. and Gregory Allen of The Law Offices Of Gregory Allen, PC

This event is free to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLEStandard 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
site pricing covid

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 STUDENT MEMBERS:  $10

Registration includes:

  • 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.

Cancellation Policy:

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. 

System requirements: 

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 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:

  • Alaska
  • California
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont

AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states: 

  • Alabama
  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Virginia
  • Washington
For information on CLE accreditation in all other states, please contact our CLE Department at  CLE credit may be available, but will require additional time for approval and COA delivery.

CLE Restrictions: 

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.


Add to: