Judicial Advocacy
AIPLA files amicus briefs in cases that are 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 considers 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 their understanding of policy and legal questions in dispute.
Interested in Requesting AIPLA Consideration for Amicus Support?
For more information on how to request AIPLA's consideration for amicus support and to learn more about the process, please click HERE.
Learn More About the Amicus Committee Leadership
For information about the Amicus Committee and it's current leadership, please click HERE.
Click the tabs below to explore some of AIPLA's judicial advocacy:
2024
-
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
March 21, 2024
Arlington, VA. February 29, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of neither party with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a case on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court held that the post-GATT patents-in-suit are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches and found unreasonable and inexcusable delay where 13 years had elapsed between the provisional patent application and presenting the claims at issue.
2023
-
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Sherman Nealy, et al.
December 7, 2023
Arlington, VA. December 7, 2023 - the American Intellectual Property Law Association filed an amicus brief in support of neither party to the Supreme Court in Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Sherman Nealy, et al. on the issue of whether the Copyright Act's statute of limitations imposes a three-year limit on the lookback period for damages in copyright ownership disputes applying the discovery rule. -
AIPLA Filed Amicus Brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re: Cellect, LLC
November 29, 2023
Arlington, VA. November 22, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re: Cellect, LLC. in support of a petition for rehearing en banc. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in The TriZetto Group, Inc. v. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited
October 24, 2023
On October 18, 2023, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in The TriZetto Group, Inc. v. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited (23-306) on the issue of whether unjust enrichment damages in a trade secret case should be considered independently of the victim’s own loss. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief with Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re: Xencor, Inc.
October 16, 2023
On October 6, 2023, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re: Xencor, Inc., a case on appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The case concerns the Board’s rejection of patent claims directed to a treatment method involving administration of an antibody containing certain amino acid substitutions that increase the antibody’s half-life. The Board rejected the claims for lack of written description and as indefinite. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief with Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC
September 5, 2023
Arlington, VA. August 29, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in support of neither party in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a case that the Federal Circuit agreed to rehear en banc in June 2023. The case concerns the test for obviousness for design patents and whether the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR (which involved a utility patent) overrules or abrogates the current Rosen-Durling framework. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Vidal v. Elster
August 2, 2023
Arlington, VA. August 2, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violated the applicant’s First Amendment right to criticize government officials or public figures. -
AIPLA Files an Amicus Brief with the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation
March 6, 2023
Arlington, VA. March 6, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, an appeal arising from a $2.1 billion verdict and resulting judgment in a trade secret misappropriation case brought by Appian against Pegasystems. -
AIPLA Files an Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi
February 14, 2023
Arlington, VA. February 14, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
January 20, 2023
Arlington, VA. January 18, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (No. 22-148) supporting reversal and remand of the Ninth Circuit’s decision below. The case involves VIP’s “humorous” use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product. -
AIPLA Files Brief in Support of None of the Parties in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.
January 1, 2023
Arlington, VA. January 1, 2023 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed a merits-stage amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic Int’l Inc., Case. No. 21-1043.
2022
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
2021
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
2020
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
2019
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
2018
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
2017
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
Judicial Advocacy Archives
To see amicus briefs filed by AIPLA from previous years, please click here
Recent Advocacy
-
AIPLA Comments to Copyright Office on Group Registration of Two-Dimensional Artwork
April 2, 2024
Arlington, VA. April 1, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to group registration of two-dimensional artwork. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
March 21, 2024
Arlington, VA. February 29, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of neither party with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a case on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court held that the post-GATT patents-in-suit are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches and found unreasonable and inexcusable delay where 13 years had elapsed between the provisional patent application and presenting the claims at issue. -
AIPLA Comments to Copyright Office on Group Registration of Updates to a News Website
February 22, 2024
Arlington, VA. February 20, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to group registration of updates to a news website. -
AIPLA Comments to HHS on WHO Pandemic Treaty
February 8, 2024
Arlington, VA. January 31, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments in response to the RFC on Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement. -
AIPLA Comments to NIST on March-In Rights Guidance
February 7, 2024
Arlington, VA. February 5, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to the Request for Information Regarding the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights.
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1625, amicus brief on the merits supporting neither party, filed 11/19/2018.
AIPLA 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.
Beyond the merits of statutory interpretation arguments, the brief maintained that the policy of incentivizing prompt copyright registration with extraordinary remedies is undermined by exempting copyright costs from those Title 28 limitations. Congress permitted in 17 U.S.C. §412 the extraordinary remedies of statutory damages and attorney’s fees only where registration was made before infringement commenced or within three months of first publication. Absent the limitations of Sections 1920 and 1821, extraordinary cost awards may circumvent those statutory incentives to register.
The brief also contends that allowing awards of “full costs” without limitation gives courts no guidance about the factors to be considered, which is likely to increase the uncertainty about cost awards that already exists among various courts.
- Amicus Brief
- Legal
