AIPLA files amicus briefs in litigation that is important to its members, following a long tradition of judicial advocacy. Those briefs are accessible by clicking the relevant year of the case in the navigation column on the left side of this page.
The AIPLA Amicus Committee receives many requests from parties in litigation for the Association's amicus support, and the Committee screens and recommends to the Board of Directors the best cases for AIPLA to join and urge its positions on the cutting edge issues of the law. Although AIPLA welcomes the views of the parties to the dispute, the AIPLA amicus positions are the product of independent consideration by the Committee and the Board of Directors, based on the law and an their understanding of policy and legal questions in dispute.
Click the tabs below to explore some of AIPLA's judicial advocacy:
Judicial Advocacy 2019
Judicial Advocacy 2018
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, U.S., No. 17-1657, filed 12/17/2018.
December 17, 2018A debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement— which “constitutes a breach of such contract,” 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)—does not terminate those licensee rights that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief.
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, U.S., No. 17-1594, amicus brief supporting a petition for certiorari, filed 12/17/2018.
December 17, 2018The Federal Circuit erroneously held that the government is a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §321(a) for purposes of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review the validity of a patent in a covered business method proceeding, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a December 17, 2018 amicus brief.
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1625, amicus brief on the merits supporting neither party, filed 11/19/2018.
December 6, 2018AIPLA on November 19, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that awards of “full costs” under Section 505 of the Copyright Act are limited to categories that courts may tax as costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920 and order paid to witnesses under 28 U.S.C. §1821.
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1229, amicus brief on the merits supporting neither party, filed 9/4/2018.
September 4, 2018The Federal Circuit erred in construing the on-sale provisions of 35 USC 102 by failing to recognize that a sale creates a prior art disclosure only if the sale makes the claimed invention “publicly available,” AIPLA argued in a September 4, 2018 amicus brief to the Supreme Court.
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1229, amicus brief supporting a petition for certiorari, filed 3/30/2018.
March 30, 2018The Federal Circuit failed to give effect to a revision of the “on sale” doctrine made by the America Invents Act (AIA) which imposed a “public availability” requirement not only on the fact of an early sale but also on the subject matter of the sale, i.e., the “claimed invention,” according to an AIPLA amicus brief supporting a petition for Supreme Court review.
Booking B.V. v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 4th Cir., No. 17-2459, amicus brief filed 3/19/2018.
March 19, 2018The Patent and Trademark Office has incorrectly interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring an award of attorneys' fees, win or lose, to the agency in district court proceedings reviewing decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., U.S., No. 16-1011, amicus brief filed 3/5/2018.
March 5, 2018A damages award for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) should include foreign lost profits when the harm was proximately caused by domestic infringement, AIPLA argued in a Supreme Court brief filed March 5, 2018.
Judicial Advocacy 2017
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, Fed. Cir., No. 2016-1794, 11/22/2017.
November 22, 2017Section 145 of the Patent Act, which permits disappointed patent applicants to seek district court review of PTO decisions, does not permit awards of attorneys' fees to PTO lawyers participating in the proceeding, according to an AIPLA brief to the en banc Federal Circuit.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, U.S., No. 16-712, 8/31/2017.
August 31, 2017Congress's decision to permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to adjudicate and if necessary cancel issued patents does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or the Seventh Amendment, according to a brief filed August 31, 2017, at the Supreme Court.
In re Silver, Sup. Ct. of Texas, No. 16-1682, 8/10/2017
August 9, 2017Communications between a patent agent and a client should enjoy the protections of an attorney-client privilege when those communications occur within the scope of a patent agent’s authority under the Patent Act, according to an AIPLA letter brief filed August 10, 2017, in the Supreme Court of Texas.
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Fed. Cir., Nos. 16-1284, 7/14/2017
July 14, 2017A Federal Circuit panel misconstrued the statutory language and legislative history of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as amended by the America Invents Act (AIA), when it invalidated a patent based on a press release and SEC filing about a sales agreement by the patent owner, according to an AIPLA amicus brief urging en banc review of the case.
WiFi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Fed. Cir., No. 2015-1944, amicus brief filed 2/23/2017
February 23, 2017The statute (35 U.S.C. 314(d)) barring appeals of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions to institute inter partes review proceedings (IPR) does not apply to the statute (35 U.S.C. 315(b)) prohibiting the Board from instituting an IPR on a petition filed more than one year after the petitioner was sued for infringement, according to an AIPLA amicus brief to the en banc Federal Circuit.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, U.S., No. 16-341, amicus brief filed 2/6/2017
February 6, 2017The Federal Circuit correctly interpreted the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” in the patent venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., U.S., No. 15-1189, amicus brief filed 1/24/2017
January 24, 2017The Supreme Court's decisions in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2012), and Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), require no change to the Federal Circuit law of international patent exhaustion and conditional sales, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a January 24, 2017 amicus brief. <br /> <div> </div>
Peter v. Nantkwest, U.S., No. 18-801, amicus brief filed 07/22/2019.
July 24, 2019AIPLA argues that the Supreme Court should reject the Government’s argument that an applicant challenging a PTAB decision under Section 145 must also pay pro rata for PTO attorney and staff time, even if the applicant’s challenge is successful.
1-800 Contacts v. Federal Trade Commission, 2nd Cir., No. 18-3848, amicus brief filed 06/14/2019.
June 14, 2019The Federal Trade Commission erred in multiple respects in holding that the parties’ agreed-upon advertising prohibitions unreasonably restrain trade in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, AIPLA argued in a June 14, 2019, amicus brief.
Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, amicus brief filed 5/1/2019.
May 7, 2019This Amicus Brief addresses the question of what is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted non-patent reference qualifies as a “printed publication” at the institution stage.
Iancu v. Brunetti, U.S., No. 18-302, amicus brief filed 2/25/2019.
February 26, 2019The Lanham Act ban against registering immoral and scandalous marks violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it has a viewpoint-discriminatory effect, AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court in a February 25, 2018 amicus brief.
Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC., PTAB, Case No. IPR2018-00914, amicus brief filed 12/28/2018.
January 8, 2019AIPLA on December 28, 2018, argued in an amicus brief to the Precedential Opinion Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the circumstances in which the Director may grant a motion for self-joinder should be the exception, not the rule.