2011 annual meeting ebulletin

BULLETINAmerican Intellectual Property Law Association

2011 Annual Meeting IssueWashington, DC

William G. Barber2011-2012 AIPLA President

2 aipla bulletin 2011 annual meeting issue

focused on intellectual property law

Finnegan is dedicated to advancing the ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, our lawyers work with leading

corporations and innovators in virtually every industry and technology to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important

intellectual property assets.

For more information please visit:www.finnegan.com

2011 annual meeting issue aipla bulletin 3

in this issue...

Meet William Barber, AIPLA 2011–2012 President .......................................................................................7President’s Report ...........................................................................................................................................8Board of Directors Meeting Dates .....................................................................................................................5Copyright Office Affairs ....................................................................................................................................13Upcoming AIPLA Online Programs ..................................................................................................................20Future Meetings Calendar ...............................................................................................................................21CLE Information for 2011 .................................................................................................................................22Thank You 2011 Annual Meeting Sponsors ...................................................................................................24

For AIPLA Student Members:Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition ...............................................................................26Robert C. Watson Competition ........................................................................................................................27

AIPLA Strategic Plan .......................................................................................................................................43

Committee Reports:

Alternative Dispute Resolution .............................. 43Amicus ................................................................... 43Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-Piracy ........................ 45Antitrust Law ......................................................... 45Biotechnology ....................................................... 46Chemical Practice ................................................. 47Copyright Law ....................................................... 48Corporate Practice ................................................. 48Diversity in IP Law ................................................. 49Education ............................................................... 49Electronic and Computer Law .............................. 50Emerging Technologies ......................................... 51Fellows ............................................................... 51Food and Drug ....................................................... 53Industrial Designs ................................................. 53International and Foreign Law ............................... 53International Education .......................................... 54International Trade Commission ............................ 55IP Law Associations ............................................... 55IP Practice in China .............................................. 57IP Practice in Europe ............................................. 57IP Practice in the Far East ..................................... 57IP Practice in Japan ............................................... 57IP Practice in Latin America .................................. 58Law Practice Management .................................... 60Law Students ......................................................... 60Licensing and Management of IP Assets .............. 60Membership ........................................................... 62Mentoring ............................................................... 62

Mergers and Acquisitions ..................................... 63Online Programs .................................................... 64Patent Agents ....................................................... 65Patent Cooperation Treaty Issues ........................ 66Patent Law ............................................................. 66Patent Litigation ..................................................... 67Patent-Relations with the USPTO ......................... 68Professional Programs ......................................... 68Professionalism and Ethics ................................... 69Public Appointments .............................................. 69Public Education .................................................... 69Special Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore .................... 70Special Committee on IP Practice in Israel 70Special Committee on Legislation ......................... 71Special Committee on National IP Practitioner Associations Worldwide ....................................... 71Special Committee on Standards and Open Source ......................................................... 72Trade Secret Law ................................................. 72Trademark Internet ................................................ 73Trademark Law ...................................................... 73Trademark Litigation .............................................. 75Trademark Treaties and International Law ............ 76Trademark-Relations with the USPTO ................. 76USPTO Inter Partes Patent Proceedings .............. 76Women in IP Law .................................................. 77Young Lawyers ..................................................... 77

Front Cover Photo Credit:Mattox Photography

Published from the Association Office

AIPLA241 18th Street South, Suite 700Arlington, VA 22202(p) 703.415.0780(f) 703.415.0786Web: www.aipla.org

Domestic Subscription Rate: $60.00 per yearForeign Subscription Rate:$70.00($20.00 per copy)

AIPLA

New Members .................................................................................................................................................80

Bulletin


Brian B. Darville Brocadiant, PLLC211 North Union Street, Suite 100Alexandria, VA 22314

Mercedes K. Meyer Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20005-1209

Philip T. Petti USG Corporation550 West Adams StreetChicago, IL 60661

Michael W. Piper Conley Rose, PC5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 750Plano, TX 75024

Board of Directors

President William G. Barber PirkeyBarber, LLP600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2120Austin, TX 78701

President-ElectJeffrey I.D. Lewis Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP1133 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10036-6710

First Vice PresidentWayne P. Sobon Rambus, Inc.1050 Enterprise Way, Suite 700Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Second Vice PresidentSharon A. Israel Mayer Brown, LLP700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3400Houston, TX 77002

Immediate Past PresidentDavid W. Hill Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP901 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001-4413

SecretaryElizabeth Ann “Betty” MorganThe Morgan Law Firm260 Peachtree Street, Suite 1601Atlanta, GA 30303

TreasurerGeorgann S. Grunebach Fox Legal Group2121 Avenue of the StarsLos Angeles, CA 90067

Officers

term expires october 2012

Bulletin


Monday, January 23, 2012Las Vegas NVThursday, January 26, 2012Las Vegas, NVThursday, March 22, 2012Arlington, VA

Thursday, May 10, 2012Austin, TXSaturday, May 12, 2012Austin, TXWednesday, July 11, 2012Arlington, VA

Friday, September 14, 2012Austin, TXThursday, October 25, 2012Washington, DCSaturday, October 27, 2012Washington, DC

2012 Meeting DatesBoard of Directors

Philip S. Johnson Johnson & JohnsonOne Johnson & Johnson PlazaNew Brunswick, NJ 08933

Samson Helfgott Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP575 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10022-2585

Carl Oppedahl Oppedahl Patent Law Firm, LLCP O Box 5940Dillon, CO 80435

Kimberly N. Van VoorhisMorrison & Foerster755 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304

term expires october 2014Barbara A. Fiacco Foley Hoag LLPSeaport West155 Seaport BoulevardBoston, MA 02210-2600

J. Michael Martinez de Andino Hunton and WilliamsRiverfront Plaza, East Tower951 Byrd StreetRichmond, VA 23219

Kevin Tottis Law Offices of Kevin TottisSuite 1200211 West Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606

Chen Wang E.I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanyBarley Mill Plaza 25/12084417 Lancaster PikeWilmington, DE 19805

Executive Director Q. Todd DickinsonAIPLA241 18th St. SArlington, VA 22202

General CounselMark L. Whitaker Baker Botts, LLP1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20004

term expires october 2013


Trademark Central®

Pirkey Barber LLP, 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2120, Austin, Texas 78701 ph: 512-322-5200 / web: PirkeyBarber.com

© 2011 Pirkey Barber LLP

WE DO ONE THING AND WE DO IT WELLPirkey Barber’s team of leading experts focuses exclusively on trademark, copyright and unfair competition law. We combine top-of-the-line skills and experience with a client-centered business philosophy.

“This small but eff ective niche practice is seen as one of the best in the fi elds of trademark and copyright law. Based in Austin, the team adeptly deals with litigation, opposition and cancellation proceedings, domain name disputes, portfolio management and trademark clearance.”

~ Chambers USA 2011; www.chambersandpartners.com


AIPLA’s 104th President is unique, but he has much in common with prior leaders of the Association. Bill Barber becomes the first member of AIPLA’s “Trademark Mafia” to become President of the Association. As a young lawyer who has earned his distinguished reputation in trademark law, Bill is a first. But in many ways he upholds the heritage of past leaders of AIPLA.

Many do not know that Bill is also a registered patent attorney, although he no longer practices in that field. In that respect he joins almost every Past President of the Association. He is also one of a countless number of chemical engineers to assume the presidency. He is the 8th Texan in roughly the last half century to become President. And like at least four other presidents, he is a graduate of the University of Texas and an avid fan of the Texas Longhorns.

Bill entered the profession in the firm founded by Tom Arnold, AIPLA’s 71st President. Like many other leaders of the Association, Bill was a beneficiary of the Arnold legacy that shaped many aspects of intellectual property law and of this association. After a brief but successful stint in patent law, Bill found even greater success in trademark law, and it is trademark law that has defined his outstanding career. Having represented both plaintiffs and defendants, big and small, in some 500 trademark actions primarily in the federal courts, Bill is in an elite circle of experienced trademark experts.

Bill was born in Austin into a family of high achievers. His father went from a small Texas town to Harvard Law School and became an outstanding trial lawyer in Austin. His brother and two sisters all graduated from the University of Texas (UT) at the top of their classes and have many achievements of their own.

Bill received his chemical engineering degree with highest honors from the UT in 1984, and his law degree from UT, with high honors, in 1987.

Bill entered the profession as a law clerk at Texas-based

Arnold, White & Durkee while still in law school and, upon his graduation, joined that firm where he eventually became a shareholder. When Arnold, White & Durkee merged into another firm in 2000, Bill joined many of his Austin colleagues as a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski. Then, in 2006, he became a founding and name partner of the trademark boutique, Pirkey Barber LLP, where he practices today.

Bill’s partners at Pirkey Barber LLP know him as a person who always seems to have a good answer for the toughest of questions. Knowledgeable, studious, thorough, thoughtful and detail-oriented, while still understanding the big picture, Bill is the perfect colleague.

The sparkle in Bill’s life comes from his vivacious wife Melinda, a west Texas girl with a smile as big as the Lone Star State. He and Melinda are the proud parents of three daughters, Robyn, Elyse, and Melynn. Both Bill and Melinda are close to their large families, and despite his many professional duties Bill manages to spend a lot of quality time with the families.

AIPLA is not the only organization Bill has blessed with his talents. He has served in various capacities with a number of other professional associations, written numerous articles and given many lectures on topics in trademark law. He also served for many years as an adjunct professor of Trademark Law at the University of Texas School of Law.

Our Association is fortunate to be able to borrow the talents of Bill Barber during 2011-2012 as he serves as its 104th President.

The 104th President of the AIPLAWilliam G. Barber

by Louis T. Pirkey


It may sound cliché, but there has never been a more exciting time to be an IP lawyer – nor more opportunities to get involved in AIPLA. Activities are literally exploding around the globe in all aspects of IP. With my first President’s Report, I will briefly report on AIPLA’s involvement in these many areas:

The America Invents Act – Victory at Last!On September 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA), the most extensive reform of the patent laws in this country in nearly 60 years. AIPLA and a number of our members worked tirelessly on this legislation for many years and through several Congresses. Our Executive Director, Todd Dickinson, represented the association at the historic signing ceremony and White House reception afterward, and had a chance to talk briefly with the President. I asked Todd whether he felt that President Obama knew who AIPLA was and what our pivotal role was in getting this bill passed. The answer was yes – when Todd introduced himself, the President responded, “You all have been working on this for a very long time, haven’t you?” What a great day for AIPLA and America – congratulations to all involved.

Trademark Reforms?I have asked our Special Committee on Legislation, in consultation with our Trademark Law and Trademark Litigation Committees, to consider several possible amendments to the Lanham Act, including:

Well-Known Marks. The US government and AIPLA have long supported protection for foreign marks that are well-known in the US but not yet used or registered here, consistent with our obligations under various treaties, bilateral agreements, and similar international instruments. Yet the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and some courts continue to deny owners of such marks the ability to prevent pirates from using or registering the same (or similar) marks to confuse American consumers. We intend to work with the International Trademark Association (INTA) and other organizations to correct this problem in the near future.

Remedies. In my view, the monetary remedies section for trademark infringement actions under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) needs to be reformed. Although we have strong remedies for counterfeiting and cybersquatting, it is very difficult for trademark owners to obtain any monetary relief at all in ordinary trademark infringement cases. This stands in stark contrast to other IP laws—successful patent plaintiffs are entitled to a minimum of a reasonable royalty, and copyright plaintiffs are entitled to statutory

damages (assuming they have timely registered their works). Trademark owners, on the other hand, are typically faced with the prospect of spending several hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating against an infringer, only to receive an injunction and no monetary remedy if successful. This is highly inequitable to trademark owners in many circumstances, and deters pursuit of legitimate trademark claims.

We will also be looking at whether the Supreme Court’s eBay decision is making it unduly difficult for successful trademark plaintiffs to obtain preliminary and/or permanent injunctions, and if so consider whether a legislative fix would be appropriate.

Trade Dress Legislation. We will be considering whether the time has come to ask Congress to legislatively overrule certain aspects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart v. Samara Bros. and TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays, which made it much more difficult to obtain trade dress protection for product designs.

TDRA Registration Defense. Finally, we expect to work to correct a drafting error in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, where ownership of a federal registration was intended to bar state dilution claims only, but instead appears to bar all dilution claims.

Meetings/ProgramsAnnual Meeting . Our Annual Meeting in Washington, DC October 19-22 was truly extraordinary. Attendance was at an all-time high (over 2,000 registrants), and there was a palpable “buzz” in the air throughout the week, no doubt inspired by the enactment of the AIA just one month before. In addition to our usual outstanding CLE programs, highlights included a keynote speech by Senator Patrick Leahy, the lead sponsor of the AIA in the Senate, and presentations by Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office David J. Kappos, who spoke at the opening plenary session and at the luncheon to share his views about the AIA and its impact on the USPTO. As is our tradition, we also presented a number of awards to very distinguished and deserving recipients:

• Donald R. Dunner, Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, received the 2011 AIPLA Excellence Award, in recognition of his extraordinary leadership and service to the intellectual property community, which is representative of a distinguished career marked by

President’s Reportby: William G. Barber, AIPLA President


intellect, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the administration of justice.

• John B. Pegram, Senior Principal, Fish & Richardson, received the AIPLA President’s Outstanding Service Award, in recognition of and with gratitude for his years of service to AIPLA, as a member and committee leader.

• Ehab M. Samuel, Associate, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, received an AIPLA Project Award, in recognition of his outstanding service as the Chair of the Young Lawyers Committee in setting up monthly meetings around the country which have increased networking and membership.

• Patrick J. Coyne, Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, received an AIPLA Project Award, in recognition of his outstanding service as Chair of the Amicus Committee for three years and Co-Chair of the Special Committee on Legislation.

• Michele K. Herman, recently named incoming Chief Counsel for Innovation Programs with Intellectual Ventures, received an AIPLA Project Award, in recognition of her imprint on standards and AIPLA’s role, and her expert recommendations to the Board as Co-Chair of the Special Committee on Standards and Open Source.

• J. Michael Martinez de Andino, Partner, Hunton & Williams, received the AIPLA Mentor of the Year Award, in recognition of his outstanding commitment to the association’s goal of providing professional and career guidance to AIPLA members.

• Sean Ricks, Vivint, Inc., received AIPLA’s inaugural Maurice Klitzman Award, which provides the opportunity for a junior corporate attorney or corporate patent agent to attend the Annual Meeting and be connected with an experienced AIPLA mentor.

• James Freedman, Stanford Law School, received AIPLA’s 2011 Robert C. Watson Award, which recognizes the author of the best article on a subject relating to the protection of intellectual property.

• Andrew Sellars, George Washington University National Law Center, received AIPLA’s 2011 Jan Jancin Award, which recognizes outstanding achievements in the study of intellectual property law.

• Nancy Cheng, University of California, Santa Clara, received AIPLA’s 2011 Past Presidents’ Award, which recognizes outstanding academic achievements in the study of intellectual property law.

Congratulations to Wayne Sobon (Officer-in-Charge), our hard working Professional Programs Committee led by Steve Malin and Manny Schecter, and all of the coordinators, moderators, speakers, committee leaders, and staff for making this such a successful meeting.

Mid-Winter Institute. On January 23-26, we will hold our Mid-Winter Institute at the one-and-only Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. Our President-Elect Jeff Lewis (Officer-in-Charge) and his planning committee are creating a unique and memorable program focusing on balancing a law practice with a quality life. I hope you will be able to join us for all the fun and excitement in Vegas.

Other Programs. In addition to our stated meetings, AIPLA continues to offer a wide range of educational conferences, boot camps, and webinars, including several series of online programs focused on changes in law and practice under the AIA. Please visit our website (www.aipla.org) for more information about these outstanding educational offerings.

USPTOOur relationship with the USPTO has never been better. The USPTO has asked for our input and participation on a number of initiatives, and our members and staff have been hard at work responding.

Dominating these tasks is the Herculean effort underway to prepare responses to the rule-making initiatives and studies mandated by the AIA. Our Immediate Past President Dave Hill appointed Past President Alan Kasper to chair a task force to tackle these projects, assisted by sub-chairs Greg Allen (responsible for Patent Office Practice Issues), Herb Hart (Post-Grant Review Issues), and Mike Kirk (Other Administrative Issues). This team has already put in a tremendous amount of work, including submission of extensive initial comments to the USPTO on November 18. In addition, Herb Hart and Ken Nigon are representing AIPLA on a Committee of Experts, along with representatives from the ABA IPL Section and IPO, which submitted detailed comments and proposed rules to the USPTO relating to Post-Grant Review, Inter Partes Review, and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Patents Under the AIA. We also submitted comments regarding the USPTO’s studies on Prior User Rights and International Patent Protection for Small Businesses, and Alan Kasper testified on AIPLA’s behalf at hearings before the USPTO on these topics in October. The AIPLA task force will no doubt remain busy on AIA-related rules, studies, and projects for the foreseeable future.

USPTO Director Kappos has also assembled a task force to consider a Nationwide Patent Pro Bono Initiative, and requested participation from AIPLA, ABA, IPO, and other organizations. Our representatives on this task force are Georgann Grunebach and Laura Zeman Mullen.

On the trademark side of the office, at the invitation of Chief Administrative Trademark Judge Gerard F. Rogers, Linda McLeod and Steve Meleen represented AIPLA at a November 1 roundtable discussion focusing on processing times and pendency measures in inter partes cases at the


TTAB. On November 29, at the invitation of Commissioner for Trademarks Deborah S. Cohn, Meghan Donohoe and Allison Strickland represented AIPLA at a meeting with the USPTO to discuss ways to develop and deliver educational programs aimed at small business owners regarding proper protection of trademark rights against infringement, including best practices for C&D letters. Finally, Commissioner Cohn invited AIPLA to participate in a User Group Session of the Tenth Annual Trademark Trilateral Cooperation Meeting on December 6, where Jody Drake spoke on our behalf. Vince Garlock, Dave Hill and I attended as observers, and we hosted a reception and dinner for the Trademark Trilateral delegates that night.

Global OutreachOne of the key objectives in our strategic plan is global outreach. We are frequently invited to attend and participate in meetings with our sister organizations and with governments around the world. Below is a summary of recent activities in this area:

Todd Dickinson attended the ABPI Annual Meeting in Rio de Janeiro August 28-30, a Conference on Accelerating IP and Innovation in South Africa September 18-20, the WIPO General Assemblies in Geneva September 26 – October 5, the CAFC/Tokyo High Court Joint Judges Conference in Tokyo October 25-27, and the European/US Patent Reform Congress in London November 18.

Dave Hill and Todd Dickinson attended the ABA Annual Meeting in Toronto August 4-9, the AIPPI Forum and ExCo meeting in India October 13-15, and the Industry Trilateral meeting in Paris November 8-9.

Dave Hill attended the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (CIPA) Annual Meeting and President’s Dinner in London October 6-7.

Wayne Sobon attended the Licensing Executives Society (LES) US and Canada Annual Meeting in San Diego October 16-19.

Jonathan Madsen attended the WIPO Standing Committee on Trademarks Meeting in Geneva October 24-28.

Chen Wang, Vince Garlock, and Jim Crowne hosted a delegation from the Zhejiang IP Office at AIPLA headquarters October 27.

I attended the ASIPI XVI Work Sessions and Administrative Council in Bolivia October 30 – November 2, the FICPI ExCo Meeting in Rome November 6-8, and the INTA Annual Meeting in Miami November 10-12.

I, along with Alan Kasper, Mark Guetlich, and Tony Venturino, attended the third meeting of the Global Network of National IP Practitioner Associations in Rome on November 9. The meeting was well attended, with leaders from national IP organizations from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada,

China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the U.K., as well as the ABA/IPL Section, AIPPI, ASIPI, and FICPI as observer organizations, and provided a wonderful venue for exchanging information and collaborating about IP protection worldwide.

On November 22, we hosted an EPO-US Bar Patent Quality meeting at AIPLA headquarters.

Representatives from our IP Practice in China Committee met with the IP Committee of the All China Lawyer’s Association in China in November.

Vince Garlock, Dave Hill and I attended the IPO Education Foundation PTO Day and Awards Dinner in Washington, DC December 5. Jeff Lewis and Todd Dickinson also attended the dinner.

Alan Kasper and Mark Guetlich attended the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents Meeting in Geneva December 5-9.

Public EducationAnother one of our major strategic objectives is educating the public at large about the value of intellectual property to our economy and society, and the importance of strong and balanced IP laws. A key initiative that my predecessor Dave Hill and I launched recently to assist in this process is a Rapid Response Task Force, chaired by Joe Cianfrani and Griff Price. The purpose of this team is to identify erroneous or unfair negative news reports or other publicity about IP, and where warranted, prepare responses that we will seek to have published in the same and/or equally prominent publications. This task force has been quite busy, and we already have efforts underway to get these responses published to counteract this type of negative publicity. Many thanks to this energetic team of talented writers, and to Jim Crowne for coordinating this effort and skillfully working to get the responses published.

In addition, our Public Education Committee continues to actively develop its website (www.creativityinbloom.org) and materials to assist in educating the public of all ages and walks of life about the importance of intellectual property. AIPLA also participated in the USPTO’s Trademark Expo, which had over 15,000 attendees over the course of two-days.

AdvocacyAmicus Activity. Ed Reines, Jerry Selinger, and Jim Crowne continue to do a masterful job leading AIPLA’s amicus efforts. We have filed amicus briefs in the following cases since the last President’s Report:

Golan v. Holder. AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which accords copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the United States so long as the term of protection would not have otherwise

already expired, is a proper exercise of Congress’s power under the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution and does not violate the First Amendment.

Kappos v. Hyatt. AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court that a patent applicant who files a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to challenge the USPTO’s rejection of a patent application may introduce new evidence, and the district court should decide de novo the factual questions to which such new evidence pertains.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. AIPLA argued to the Supreme Court that claims directed to personalized medicine, therapeutic treatment of humans, and diagnostic methods that utilize the natural metabolic process of the human body constitute patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Although we frequently file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, I have asked our Amicus Committee, Trademark Litigation Committee, and Copyright Law Committee to be on the lookout for appropriate cases to participate in at the regional circuit courts of appeals.

Comments to Government and Administrative AuthoritiesOn September 19, we submitted comments to the USPTO regarding a proposed revision of the materiality to patentability standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications. My appreciation to Ken Nigon of the Patent Law Committee and Greg Allen of the Patent-Relations with the USPTO Committee for their work on these comments.

On September 22, we submitted comments to the USPTO regarding proposed changes in requirements for specimens and for affidavits or declarations of continued use or excusable nonuse in trademark cases. Many thanks to Jody Drake for drafting these comments.

On October 14, we submitted comments to the State Council Legislative Affairs Office regarding the 2011 Revision Draft to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. Many thanks to the Trademark Treaties and International Law Committee and the IP Practice in China Committee for preparing our comments and translating them to Chinese.

On October 25, the new Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante issued a report entitled, “Priorities and Special Projects of the United States Copyright Office.” Our Copyright Law Committee is busy studying this extensive report and will make recommendations about commenting on various priorities and projects.

On October 31, we submitted comments to the USPTO on practices and procedures we would like to see other IP offices harmonize and improve as part of our user group participation in the Trademark Trilateral Cooperation meeting

in December.

On November 3, Naomi Voegtli presented a statement to NAS on our behalf regarding IP management in standard-setting processes worldwide.

On November 10, we joined a letter to the US Department of Commerce expressing concern about ICANN’s decision to approve the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook and move forward with plans to open the new gTLD application window in January. In a similar vein, we joined a letter to ICANN in September expressing concern about its proposed revisions to its conflicts of interest policy.

Committee/Personnel NewsSeveral of our special committees “graduated” to full standing committees in October. These include the Food and Drug Committee (formerly the Special Committee on the FDA), the IP Practice in China Committee, and the Mergers and Acquisition Committee. I also created a new Special Committee on IP Practice in Israel, and we are participating in a newly formed SIPO/US Bar Liaison Council. Congratulations to these committees for their development and outstanding contributions to AIPLA.

The Young Lawyers Committee has introduced a terrific newsletter entitled Business Casual.

Congratulations to Mark Whitaker of Baker Botts LLP, who was recently appointed to serve as our General Counsel.

Congratulations to Linda McLeod (current Chair of our Trademark-Relations with the USPTO Committee) for her recent appointment to the TPAC. Our association is now well-represented on the USPTO’s public advisory committees, with Linda joining Jody Drake (outgoing Chair of the Trademark-Relations with the USPTO Committee) on the TPAC, and our First Vice President Wayne Sobon serving on the PPAC.

At our Annual Meeting, several employees were honored for reaching significant milestones in their tenure with AIPLA, including Bill Durante (31 years), Cathleen Clime (25 years), and Iris Howell (15 years). These are very special people, and I want to personally thank and congratulate them for their many years of service and loyalty to our association.

Last but not least, please help me welcome several new hires to the AIPLA family: Lorri Ragan (Director of Marketing and Communications), Erin Sheehan (Policy Assistant), Paige Barfield (Marketing, Communications and Web Assistant), and Megan Impala (Online CLE and IT Assistant). We are very blessed to have such talented and energetic employees joining our staff.

See you in Vegas!


12 aipla bulletin 2011 annual meeting issue32 • 2011 Spring Meeting • San Francisco, CA

Trim: 7.25”x9.75”

TEL: +92-42-36285588-90, +92-42-37249638-9 FAX: +92-42-36285585-7, +92-42-37323501

Undertaking Intellectual Property Registrations & Enforcement in Gulf, Middle Eastern, South & East Asian

and African Countries through the network of regional offices

Email:

Websites: and

[email protected]

www.utmps.com www.unitedip.com

(Registered) Head Office:

West End Building, 61-The Mall,

Lahore - 54000 PAKISTAN.

(New) Postal & Visiting Address:

(Opposite Ferozesons books store / adjacent rado time center)

85 -The Mall Road, Lahore 54000 Pakistan

DUBAI (UAE)

Postal Address:

P.O. Box. 72430,

Dubai, UAE

Street Address:

Suites 401- 402,

Al-Hawaii Tower,

Sheikh Zayed Road,

Tel: +971-4-3437544

Fax: +971-4-3437546

Email: [email protected]

SHARJAH

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 22880

Sharjah, UAE

(UAE)

Street Address:

Suite 203, Buhaira Building,

Buhaira Corniche (Al-Majaz)

Sharjah, UAE

Tel: +971-6-5722742

Fax: +971-6-5722741


Street Address:

Suite 21, Bldg 232, Block 321,

Old Exhibition Avenue,

Al Hoora, Kingdom of Bahrain.

Tel: +973-1-7710458

Fax: +973-1-7710459


BAHRAIN

Postal address:

P.O. Box 26754

Adliya, Kingdom of Bahrain

Street Address

Al- Thumama Street,

Sulaiyamania, Riyadh,

Saudi Arabia

Tel: +966-1- 4655477+966-1-4653128

Fax: +966-1- 4622134


SAUDI ARABIA

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 15185, Riyadh 11444,

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Street Address:

nd

Suite 7, 2 Floor,

Chicago Building, Abdali

Amman, Jordan

Tel: +962-6-5683088

Fax: +962-6-5683089


JORDAN

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 925852

11190 Abdali, Amman, Jordan

Street Address:

th rd

4 Floor, 3 Entrance,

Bin Jaham Al Kuwari Complex,

Al Saad Street, Doha, Qatar

Tel: +974-4443083, 4443093

Fax: +974-4447311


QATAR

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 23896,

Doha, Qatar

LEBANON

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 11-7078,

Beirut - Lebanon

Street Address:

6th Floor, Burj Al Ghazal,

Tabaris

Beirut - Lebanon

Tel : +961-1-215373

Fax : +961-1-215374


OMAN

Postal Address:

P.O. Box 3441 Ruwi, Postal Code 112,

Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Street Address:

th

Suite No. 702, 7 Floor,

Oman Commercial Centre,

Ruwi, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Tel: +968-2-478 7555, +968-2-470 4788

Fax: +968-2-479 4447


UNITED TRADEMARK

& PATENT SERVICES

Trademark,

registration, litigation & enforcement services

Patent, Design, Copyright, Domain name

International Intellectual Property Attorneys

Your reliable partners for property

in

Pakistan, South East Asia, Arabian Gulf, Middle East & Africa

intellectual matters


Pallante Named 12th Register of CopyrightsJames Billington, the Librarian of Congress, announced his selection of Maria Pallante as the 12th Register of Copyrights on June 1, 2011.

“Maria’s background and experience make her an ideal choice to lead the Copyright Office at this time,” Billington said. “She is a thoughtful civil servant, a proven and effective manager, a leader in the wider copyright community, and a recognized expert in domestic and international copyright law.”

In announcing his decision, Billington cited the increasing importance of copyright law to the national economy and the many complex issues facing owners and users of copyrighted works. He noted in particular the challenge of protecting authors’ intellectual property interests online and the need to achieve meaningful exceptions to copyright law to serve the public interest.

In making the appointment, Billington noted the high regard for Pallante among copyright stakeholders, including multinational businesses and individual citizens. He also commended Pallante’s understanding of the role of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress.

Pallante served on the Copyright Office’s policy and international team from 1996 to 1997, after working for several years in New York as assistant director of the Authors Guild and then executive director of the National Writers Union—in each job focusing on copyright, licensing, and first amendment issues.

From 1999 to 2007, she was Intellectual Property Counsel and Director of Licensing for the worldwide Guggenheim Museums, based in New York. There she worked closely with the international exhibition, publishing, product, and branding divisions. In 2007, she returned to the Copyright Office as deputy general counsel, advancing to Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs in 2008. In October 2010, she moved to the Library of Congress as senior advisor to the Librarian, who appointed her Acting Register of Copyrights in January 2011.

Pallante is a graduate of George Washington University National Law Center and has a bachelor’s degree in history

from Misericordia University, which also awarded her an honorary doctorate of humane letters.

Register Issues Report on Priorities and Special ProjectsRegister of Copyrights Maria Pallante addressed Copyright Office staff at a series of meetings held on October 24, 2011, to announce her priorities and special projects for the next two years. In a document released to the public the next day, the Register summarized ambitious plans regarding copyright policy and administrative practice and announced 10 new projects focused on improving the quality and efficiency of Office services. For the benefit of the public, the report also summarizes the history, responsibilities, and funding of the Office.

To read the document, go to www.copyright.gov/docs/priorities.pdf.

Comments Requested on Works Whose Users Likely to Be Adversely Affected by Circumvention ProhibitionThe Copyright Office is preparing to conduct proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act under which the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. The notice requests written comments from all interested parties, including libraries, archives, scholars, researchers, and members of the public, to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works. Initial written comments were accepted on a form on the Office’s website from November 2, 2011, through December 1, 2011. The deadline for the second round of comments, which will be no later than February 15, 2012, will be announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in December 2011. A separate notice on dates and locations of hearings

Copyright Office Affairsby: Wendi A. Maloney & Judith Nierman


will be published later in the Federal Register and on the Copyright Office website.

For further information, go to www.copyright.gov/1201.

Office Releases Analysis and Discussion Document on Mass Digitization of BooksThe Copyright Office has published a preliminary analysis and discussion document that addresses the issues raised by the intersection between copyright law and the mass digitization of books. The purpose of the analysis is to facilitate further discussions among the affected parties and the public—discussions that may encompass a number of possible approaches, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both. The analysis builds on prior work by the Copyright Office, Congress, and the stakeholder community in a variety of areas, including orphan works, library exceptions, and effective licensing models.

For further information, go to www.copyright.gov/docs/massdigitization.

Office Reports to Congress on Repeal of Cable and Satellite LicensesThe Copyright Office submitted a report to Congress in August 2011 about potential repeal of the cable and satellite statutory licenses in sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright Act.

Congress directed the Office to prepare the report in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010; specifically, it asked the Office to submit recommendations to achieve the phaseout and eventual repeal of the licenses.

Section 111 applies to cable operators; sections 119 and 122 affect satellite carriers. Cable and satellite companies use the licenses to clear rights to copyrighted programming carried on distant and local over-the-air broadcast signals so they can legally retransmit the programming to paying subscribers.

Congress enacted the cable and satellite licenses, when the cable and satellite industries were much smaller than they are today, to prevent fledgling companies from having to negotiate independently with thousands of individual copyright owners.

“There is no doubt that sections 111, 119, and 122 have supported the growth of the cable and satellite industries and facilitated the delivery of broadcast programming,” the Copyright Office wrote in its August report to Congress. “Today millions of subscribers access broadcast television stations (including local stations) through their cable operator or satellite carrier, for programs as diverse as news, weather, sports, and entertainment.”

At the same time, the Office characterized cable and satellite statutory licensing as an “artificial construct created

in an earlier era,” stating that copyright owners today should be “permitted to develop market-based licensing options by working with market participants, taking into account consumer demand.”

In preparing its report over the past year, the Office engaged stakeholders, including copyright owners; members of the broadcast, cable, and satellite industries; and other federal agencies.

Among its recommendations, the Office identifies business models based on three forms of private licensing: (1) sublicensing, where a broadcast station would obtain the necessary rights from copyright owners to authorize retransmission of programming by cable and satellite companies; (2) collective licensing, where an organization would be identified to negotiate on behalf of its copyright-owner members, as US performing rights organizations now negotiate public performance rights in musical works; and (3) direct licensing, where individual copyright owners would negotiate independently with cable and satellite companies.

“It is the Office’s view that sublicensing, collective licensing, and direct licensing offer feasible alternatives to the existing statutory regime, with the caveat that copyright owners will need time to develop, invest in, and experiment with a variety of solutions, tailored to the needs of their licensees and consumers,” the report states.

In other recommendations, the report advises Congress to consider a date-specific trigger for the phaseout and eventual repeal of the distant-signal licenses, building in a sufficient transition period during which cable and satellite companies would be instructed to negotiate with broadcast stations that have obtained rights from copyright owners to retransmit all the programming on the stations’ signals.

The report counsels Congress to leave repeal of the local-signal licenses to a later time. “This approach would provide stakeholders with an opportunity to test new business models with the least likely disruption to consumers,” the report states.

In addition, the report recommends that, before determining the date-specific trigger, Congress examine the unique needs of public broadcast stations and small cable operators to evaluate whether special accommodation is needed.

In conclusion, the report notes that although the cable and satellite statutory licenses are codified in copyright law, they interact with provisions of communications law and related regulations. The report advises Congress to consider and, as appropriate, address these provisions together with recommendations in the Office’s report.

The full text of the report is available at www.copyright.gov/docs/section302.


Register Testifies before House SubcommitteeOn her first day as the newly appointed Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante testified before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R–Va). The title of the June 1, 2011, hearing was “Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act, and Illegal Streaming.” It dealt with illegal streaming of copyrighted works, such as motion pictures and broadcasts of sporting events, on the Internet and the current impediments to effective prosecution of those who infringe the right to perform such works publicly.

In her oral testimony, Pallante said, “At the outset, I want to underscore that our conversation today is about criminal conduct. In the context of copyright law, this means willful, large-scale, and egregious—the type of activity that does not happen by accident and inflicts serious economic harm on authors and their licensees. Criminal provisions are necessarily stronger than civil provisions, and they are not a recent development. They have been part of US law since 1897. As described in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, the Internet has brought new challenges for copyright enforcement. And as you noted, Congress has amended the criminal law twice in the past 15 years, directly responding to copyright theft online, albeit for the rights of reproduction and distribution.”

“If I may make an obvious statement, such work is a necessary and never-ending task for Congress. Copyright policy will never be static because technology will always create new business models for authors and new opportunities for infringers. Against this backdrop, I would like to a make three points. “First, streaming implicates the exclusive right of public performance, which is fundamentally important to the authors of certain kinds of works—for example, movies, television programming, live sporting events, and music. Thanks to improved bandwidth and innovative business models, streaming is of growing importance in the marketplace.”

“Today, authors and other copyright owners license the streaming of all kinds of creative content directly to consumers. Performances can be prerecorded and streamed to customers on demand, or streams can provide access to live content, such as basketball and football games, on a subscription or pay-per-view basis, including from websites. Customers can also store licensed content—or content that they have created—in the cloud and access it through their smart phones and video game consoles.”

“All of this suggests that new products and platforms relying on streaming are a growing segment of the information and entertainment markets and, therefore, of increasing consequence for copyright owners. Indeed, according to one recent study, video-streaming traffic accounts for more than

one-quarter of all Internet traffic.”

“Second, there is a disparity in how the law treats criminal violations of the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution, on the one hand, and the exclusive right of public performance on the other. The disparity was once appropriate but is now outdated. In our analysis, current law is insufficient to provide a basis for prosecutions in cases where the primary cause of action is infringement of the exclusive right of public performance.”

“This is because an unauthorized public performance is, at most, a misdemeanor, even where the conduct is undertaken purposely and with a profit motive. Moreover, if it was not committed for purposes of commercial and financial gain, it cannot be prosecuted at all, regardless of the scope and economic impact on copyright owners.”

“While illegal streaming may sometimes involve violations of the reproduction and distribution rights, these will be inadequate in many instances.”

“Third, there are important policy reasons to give prosecutors the necessary tools to combat illegal streaming, allowing them, in their discretion, to bring felony charges. Simply put, the disparity in treatment requires attention. Illegal streaming, just like illegal downloading and copying, has the capacity to ruin the economic market for a copyrighted work. Recognizing that, as a practical matter, prosecutors have little incentive to file charges for a misdemeanor, we believe that the Department of Justice should always have the tools necessary to file felony charges against infringers when infringement meets the standards of criminal conduct and causes great harm to copyright owners and to the global marketplace that is so important to the United States.”

“To be clear, the Copyright Office is not offering an opinion on when it might or might not be appropriate for the Department of Justice to bring felony charges for streaming under any particular set of circumstances. Rather, we are underscoring the fact that prosecutors have a handicap when pursuing egregious cases of unauthorized streaming.”

“Moreover, Congress may have a chance here to get in front of the issue of illegal streaming, before it proliferates further.”

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present my views.”

Also testifying were Sandra Aistars, Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance, and Michael O’Leary, Executive Vice President of the Motion Picture Association of America.

To access all written testimony, go to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_06012011_2.html.

Office Fine-Tunes eSerials ProjectThe Copyright Office hosted two public meetings in the spring, one in April and the other in May, to improve the


process for acquiring electronic serials from publishers. Two other Library of Congress service units, the Office of Strategic Initiatives and Library Services, co-sponsored the meetings.

The Copyright Office solicited its first electronic serial in September 2010 under interim regulations it adopted the previous February. By the time of the two 2011 meetings, publishers had delivered 61 additional submissions containing more than 100,000 electronic files.

“No two publishers have submitted materials in the same way,” explained Jewel Player, chief of the Copyright Acquisitions Division, whose staff review deliveries from publishers after files are retrieved from publishers’ servers. “Almost every delivery so far has required manual intervention.”

The interim regulations the Office adopted to acquire eSerials permit it to demand, under the mandatory deposit provision of copyright law, serials available exclusively online and in digital format. Before the Office adopted the interim regulations, such works were exempt from the mandatory deposit provision.

The eSerials project is part of a larger effort to build the Library of Congress’ collection of works that exist solely in electronic formats. The Library identified digital serials as the first category of online-only works to be subject to demand by the Copyright Office under the interim regulations.

The Library selected 100 titles from 38 publishers to start the project; it will soon announce additional eSerials to be collected and, eventually, other categories of digital works.

Player said Copyright Office and Library staff knew, from discussions with publishers before demanding titles, that submissions would arrive in varied formats. She said the Office and Library want to make it as efficient as possible for publishers to comply with mandatory deposit.

“We’re trying to work with publishers in diverse ways,” she said. “The meetings were an effort to get feedback from publishers so as to find common ground.”

Although both meetings followed the same basic agenda, the April meeting focused on issues common to small publishers, while the May meeting explored problems affecting larger publishers.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” pointed out a large publisher at the May meeting. “Small publishers use more manual systems. Larger publishers are more automated.”

Player noted that the Library is considering whether to request all the titles it will want to collect from a single publisher at once, rather than selecting individual titles over time, so that publishers will be more likely to set up packaging and delivery mechanisms that suit the Library and themselves.

“If a publisher publishes hundreds of titles, and the Library

asks for only 13, it may not be reasonable to expect publishers to establish a unique workflow to accommodate the Library,” Player explained.

Ultimately, the Library hopes to receive most serial content in XML (extensible mark-up language) format that complies with a widely used standard developed by the National Library of Medicine. The “best edition” criteria included in the interim regulations specify this format as the Library’s first preference among a hierarchy of file types publishers can submit.

“XML files that meet these standards are the easiest to preserve and make accessible in the long term, which is the Library’s goal,” explained a digital project coordinator in Library Services. So far, only one publisher has delivered content in the preferred format.

“The Library was able to process its submission with minimum intervention,” the digital project coordinator reported. “We hope this will serve as an incentive for others to do the same, although we recognize that we will continue to receive multiple formats.”

The May meeting concluded with an update about new Copyright Office software that will improve the process for submitting and processing eSerials.

eSerials Project Brings to Light New Publishing ModelA major topic of discussion at public eSerials meetings the Copyright Office hosted in April and May 2011 was the transition among serials publishers from issue- to article-based publishing.

Copyright Office and Library of Congress staff became aware of this changed publishing model as a result of demanding electronic serials titles from publishers under the mandatory deposit provision of copyright law. The transition has implications for copyright registration.

Many publishers are now posting articles on their websites as soon as they are completed. At the end of a month, some publishers may designate all articles posted during the month as part of a monthly issue. Other publishers may consider all digital articles posted over the course of a year as part of a cumulative annual issue.

“When we started, we weren’t aware of the extent of article-based publishing,” commented the chief of the Copyright Acquisitions Division.

Following the May public eSerials meeting, the Copyright Office legal staff met with a select group of publishers to learn more about article-based publishing and its implications for copyright registration.

If individual articles are first published separately, the Office registers them separately. “A registration of a later aggregation will not extend to articles that were previously


published individually,” explained the Office’s deputy general counsel.

Given the likelihood that article-based publishing will increase, the Office will use the facts gathered at the publishers’ meeting to explore a group registration option for individually published articles.

Fiscal 2011 Best Year on Record for Copyright RegistrationsThe Copyright Office registered 670,044 copyright claims in fiscal 2011, the highest number in its history. It started the year with 273,472 workable claims on hand; workable claims are those staff can process without further action from remitters. The Office ended the year with 93,706 workable claims remaining. All together, staff completed 734,256 claims in fiscal 2011, including those that were not registered.

Office Amends Regulations on TerminationThe Copyright Office has issued amended regulations governing notices of termination of certain transfers and licenses of copyright under section 203 of the Copyright Act (76 FR 32316). The amended regulations were effective June 6, 2011. Section 203 permits an author who executed a grant of a transfer or license of rights in a work before 1978 to terminate the grant 35 to 40 years after the grant was made.

The Office’s amended regulations clarify the recordation practices of the Office and state that, where an author agreed, prior to 1978, to a grant of rights in a work that was not created until after 1977, a notice of termination of a grant under section 203 may be recorded if it recites, as the date of execution, the date on which the work was created. The rationale for this is that a grant cannot be “executed” (in the words of section 203) until the work has been created. For further information, go to the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/termination.

For works already under statutory copyright protection on the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act, which was January 1, 1978, the law contains a separate provision (section 304) allowing the termination of any grant during the last 39 years of the copyright term (or, if the grant was not terminated under that provision, it may be terminated during the last 20 years of the copyright term.)

Termination is optional and can be exercised only by certain persons and under certain conditions and time frames defined in the law.

Office Announces Technical AmendmentEffective July 13, 2011, the Copyright Office amended its regulations by removing Part 251, “Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel Rules and Procedures,” from the Code of Federal Regulations.

In 2004, Congress replaced the Copyright Arbitration Panels (CARP) with three Copyright Royalty Judges, who operate under separate regulations. The Office, however, retained its regulations after this transition to complete open proceedings and as a historical reference for those determinations that had been decided under the CARP system and had been appealed. Removal of these regulations is thus an administrative task taken to remove regulations that have not been needed for a while.

For further information, go to www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2011/76fr41075.pdf.

Office Extends Suspension of Special Handling Fee Because of delays in processing applications for registration, the Office decided in August 2009 to suspend the fee for special handling in certain circumstances (74 FR 39900). Special handling is the expedited processing of an application and may be granted when compelling reasons are present. The fee was first suspended from August 10, 2009, until July 1, 2011.

Rather than let the suspension expire, the Office has extended it for one year, until July 1, 2012 (76 FR 38306). The special handling fee, which is in addition to the regular fee for an application to register a copyright claim, will not be assessed for conversion of a pending application to special handling status when the application has been pending for more than six months without any action by the Copyright Office and the applicant has satisfied the Office that expedited handling of the registration is needed because the applicant is about to file a suit for copyright infringement. Circular 10, Special Handling, has been changed to reflect the new date.

Office Initiates Study on Small Copyright ClaimsOn October 27, 2011, the Copyright Office published a Federal Register notice (76 FR 66758) requesting written comments on how copyright owners have handled small copyright claims. Specifically, the Office seeks comments on how copyright owners and defendants use the current legal system for small copyright claims; the obstacles and benefits of using federal district courts; potential alternatives for handling copyright claims that have a relatively small economic value; the logistics of potential alternatives; and the benefits and risks presented by different types of processes. Over the next two years, the Office expects to seek additional comments, conduct roundtables or hearings, and meet with stakeholders. The notice of inquiry is now available at www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims. The deadline for comments is January 16, 2012.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Issued on Online Service Provider Designation of AgentThe Copyright Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and solicited public comment on its proposals to revise its regulations governing the designation by online service


providers of agents to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement as provided for in the Copyright Act. The proposed revision would provide for online submission, amendment, and periodic verification of the information in the directory of agents of online service providers maintained by the Copyright Office and for a searchable online database of online service provider agents. To enable the transition to the online database and to ensure the accuracy and currency of the information in the database, all online service providers would be required to submit new designations online, and the existing directory would be retired after one year. Written comments were due November 28, 2011. Reply comments were due December 27, 2011.

For further information, go to www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/NPR.

Office Proposes to Discontinue Form CO in Registration PracticesThe Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations to discontinue use of the Form CO application as an option for applying for copyright registration and to remove the references to CON 1 and CON 2 sheets.

Form CO applications comprise only a small percentage of all applications submitted, but they frequently contain a significant number of errors, thus requiring a disproportionate amount of the Office’s time, effort, and resources to process. The proposed amendments would remove references to Form CO and would instead allow applicants a choice to file for registration electronically or by using the appropriate printed application form that relates to the subject matter of the application; for example, Form TX for nondramatic literary works, Form PA for works of the performing arts, Form VA for works of visual art, Form SR for sound recordings, and Form SE for serials.

Additionally, the proposed amendment would remove the references to CON 1 and CON 2 sheets, which were never developed or made available to the public, and would instead refer only to the continuation sheets currently available for applicants filing paper applications. Comments were due November 29, 2011.

For further information, go to www.copyright.gov/docs/formco.

Public Meeting Informs Pre-1972 Sound Recordings StudyThe Copyright Office held a public meeting on June 2–3, 2011, to hear testimony from interested parties on whether pre-1972 sound recordings should be brought under federal copyright protection. The hearing followed a period of written comments from the public and will inform a study Congress directed the Copyright Office to prepare on the subject.

Sound recordings made on or after February 15, 1972, enjoy

federal protection, but those made earlier do not. They are covered instead by an assortment of state laws that will keep most out of the public domain until 2067, including recordings created before 1923. Under federal law, most pre-1923 works are already in the public domain.

The body of pre-1972 sound recordings is vast. It crosses genres and consists of commercially released recordings by well-known artists as well as unpublished ethnographic, spoken word, and folklore recordings, among many other kinds of works.

Copies of many pre-1972 sound recordings reside in the collections of libraries and archives. But librarians and archivists seeking to preserve the recordings and make them publicly accessible report that determining which state laws govern them is a significant burden. Moreover, most state laws, unlike federal copyright law, lack provisions permitting libraries and archives to copy holdings under certain circumstances to advance preservation and access.

“Many preservationists, archivists, librarians, and museum experts are concerned about their legal ability to make copies of pre-1972 recordings for preservation and for public access,” stated Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights, at the start of the hearing.

“We are faced, in conducting this study, with the undeniable fact that ¼ of our audio heritage has on the whole been shockingly ill-served,” she continued. “We are also faced with the question whether federalizing copyright protection of pre-1972 sound recordings will help. And, if we conclude that it will, we’re faced with the question of what is the best way of implementing solutions without causing other problems.”

Pallante noted that the Office received 76 “remarkably thoughtful” written comments in response to a notice of inquiry published in November 2010. She said the comments had “prompted other questions,” leading the Office to convene the public meeting for additional fact-finding so that staff can “produce the most comprehensive and accurate study possible.”

Twenty-one parties testified, offering diverse points of view. Topics of discussion included the current public availability of pre-1972 sound recordings; the way federalization might affect their accessibility, preservation, and value; and the potential economic impact of federalization on rights holders. The meeting also explored the term of protection should federalization be accomplished, constitutional implications of federalization, and alternatives to it.

The Office must report to Congress by the end of 2011 about its study of pre-1972 sound recordings. See www.copyright.gov/docs/sound for more details.

Updated Circular 92 Available on Office WebsiteThe new and completely up-to-date online edition of Circular


92, the text of the US copyright law, is available on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/title17. The online version of title 17 includes the amendments in 2009 and 2010 that extended the section 119 satellite statutory license (Pub. L. No. 111-118, Pub. L. No. 111-144, and Pub. Law No. 111-157). It also includes the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-175), enacted May 27, 2010, and the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-295), enacted December 9, 2010. Circular 92 will be available in book form from the Government Printing Office.

Digitization Project Processes Third of Card Catalog ContentsThe project to digitize the contents of the world’s largest card catalog succeeded in scanning 10 million cards by the end of fiscal 2011. Another 10 million were ready to be scanned. The records of copyright ownership, many of which are hand written, date from 1870 through 1977. The goals of the digitization project are to preserve the records and to provide access to the information in a searchable, online catalog of pre-1978 copyright records that integrates with the post-1977 records that are now available on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov.

Office Contributes to Report on Global Intellectual Property RightsThe Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) published its annual Special 301 Report in May 2011. Mandated under US trade law, the report evaluates the adequacy of intellectual property protection among trading partners of the United States.

Once again this year, staff from the Copyright Office’s Office of Policy and International Affairs helped prepare the report. Among other findings, this year’s report calls attention to the problem of Internet-based piracy. “Piracy over the Internet is rapidly supplanting physical piracy in many markets around the world,” the report states.

Pirate Internet sites permit consumers to view unlawfully retransmitted sports telecasts or to purchase illegal copies of movies, music, books, or software. Piracy using mobile technologies, such as telephones, tablets, and flash drives, is also common.

The report attributes increased electronic piracy to the fact that it offers “enormous profits and little risk” to the criminal enterprises that engage in it.

To develop the Special 301 Report, the USTR invited public comment through the Federal Register about the status of intellectual property protection worldwide. It also held a public hearing, including testimony by representatives of the United States, foreign governments, industry groups, and nongovernmental organizations.

Michele Woods, as Acting Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, oversaw the Copyright Office’s contribution to the process and served as a panelist representing the US government at the public hearing. Office legal staff participated in interagency fact-finding meetings, analyzed details about individual countries, attended industry briefings, and helped to write and edit report text.

Following an analysis of evidence gathered, the USTR created a list of countries it designates as having weak protections for intellectual property. The list is divided into a “priority watch list” and a “watch list.” On the priority watch list are Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela.

The USTR states that these countries will be the “subject of particularly intense bilateral engagement during the coming year.”

On the watch list are Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.


Upcoming Online ProgramsDon’t Lose Your Appeal! Learn about the New Ex Parte Rules Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:30 - 2:00 pm EDT If you practice before USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Inter-ferences, you will benefit from the upcoming webinar discussing the new ex parte appeal rules. Effective January 23, 2012, these rules simplify the format of the appeal brief, but increase the potential for waiver of issues and the right to introduce evidence. Newly-available procedures for identifying and dealing with a new ground of rejection in the examiner’s answer will be introduced, from the perspectives of the appellant, the examiner, and the Board. Other topics will include changes in the Board’s jurisdiction over an appeal and what to expect in the examiner’s answer. Lis-ten to this presentation and get the tools you will need to ensure that your appeal complies with the new rules.

Presented By: Honorable Ken Barrett, USPTO Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences Joel Miller, Joel Miller, Esq.

Selecting the Right Expert to Put on a Patentee’s Case Wednesday, February 1, 2012 12:30 - 2:00 pm EDT Over the past few years the evaluation and analysis of damages from patent infringement has become extremely complicated and the role of the damages expert has become more important. Gone are the days of simply putting up some profits and multiplying them by 25% to arrive at an answer. The webinar will focus on the process of selecting a damage expert, recent cases that may influence the decision and some of the ways that a damage expert can assist with evaluating poking holes in the opposing expert’s analysis. In particular the presentation will provide tips to consider when selecting an expert. It will also cover recent decisions regarding the computation of patent damages and identify the current damages issues on which the courts are focused and provide insights into preparing appropriate analyses. Lastly, the speakers will cover working with the damages expert to meaningfully evaluate the opposing analysis and provide strategic options. Presented By: Gillian Thackray, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Phillip Hoffman, Hoffman Alvary & Company, LLC

Post–Issuance Activities and Enforcement of Patents Under the America Invents Act Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:30 – 1:30 pm EDT

The CLE seminar examines the new post-grant mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA) including Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review, Supplemental Examination, and Transitional Pro-gram for Covered Business Method Patents. The operation and implementation of these new mechanisms will be explained, as well as the application of these new post grant USPTO proceed-ings to existing and future patent litigation strategies.

Presented By:Scott McKeown, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP

Effects of the AIA on Valuations, Licensing & AcquisitionsFebruary 15, 201212:30 – 1:30 pm EDT

Visit http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/live_webinars/qa/Pages/default.aspx#web4 for a detailed course description.

Presented By:Jeffrey Whittle, Bracewell & Giuliani LLPMichael Samardzija, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Limited CLE AvailableFor CLE information, visit the “America Invents Act Web Series” page on the AIPLA website.

If you missed the other webinars in the AIA Webinar series, visit the America Invents Act Web Series in the Learning Center on the AIPLA website and scroll down to “archives.”

AIPLA Online Programs AIPLA America Invents Act Webinar Series

For CLE information, visit the “Live Web Based Programs” page in the Learning Center on AIPLA’s website.


January 15– 18ACPC Winter Conference, Park Hyatt Aviara Resort, San Diego, CA

January 23–26AIPLA Mid–Winter Institute, Caesars PalaceLas Vegas, NV

February 1-7ABA Mid-Year Meeting, New Orleans, LA

February 2 - 4 Copyright Society Winter Meeting, Los Angeles, CA

March 7–10IPTA Annual Conference, Washington, DC (www.ipta.org.au) March 14-17AUTM Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA (www.autm.net) March 17-19ASIPI Conference, Antigua, Guatemala (www.asipi.org) March 23NYIPLA Annual Judges Dinner, New York, NY (www.nyipla.org) March 28-31ABA IPL Annual 27th Annual IP Law Conference, Arlington, VA (www.americanbar.org)

April 1-4, dates TBDLES International Annual Congress, Auckland, NZ (www.lesi.org)

April, Date TBDDesign Day, co-sponsored by AIPLA, ABA-IPL and IPO, at the USPTO, Alexandria, VA

April, Date TBDAIPLA Electronic & Computer Patent Law Summit, San Diego, CA

April 15-21FICPI World Congress and ExCo, Melbourne, AU (www.ficpi.org)

May 5–9INTA Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (www.inta.org)

May 10-12AIPLA Spring Meeting, Hilton Austin, Austin, TX (703-415-0780)

May 15-17LES US-Canada Spring Meeting, Boston, MA (www.lesusacanada.org)

May 23-24AIPLA/FICPI Joint Colloquium on Application Quality, Warsaw, Poland (703-415-0780)

June, dates TBDAIPLA 4th Annual Trademark Bootcamp, Alexandria, VA (703-415-0780)

June 10-12Copyright Society Annual Meeting, Crystal Springs Resort Grand Cascades Lodge, Hamburg, New Jersey (www.csusa.org)

June 20-23ECTA Annual Meeting, Palermo, Italy (http://www.ecta.org) June 20-23FCBA Annual Bench & Bar Conference, San Diego, CA (www.fcba.org) June 25-27ACPC Summer Meeting, Beaver Creek, CO (www.acpcnet.org)

July TBDAIPLA Patent Cooperation Treaty Seminar(703-415-0780)

August, TBDAIPLA Patent Prosecution Boot Camp – Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New LawyersAlexandria, VA(703-415-0780)

August 2-5ABA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL (www.ameri-canbar.org)

August 26-28ABPI Annual Annual Meeting, Sao Paolo, Brazil (www.abpi.org.br)

September 9–11IPO Annual MeetingSan Antonio, TXwww.ipo.org

October 10–12IPIC Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia (www.ipic.ca)

October 10-12CIPA Annual Meeting London, United Kingdom (www.cipa.org.uk)

October 14-17LES US-Canada Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (www.lesusacanada.org)

October 20–24AIPPI World Intellectual Property Congress, Seoul, Rep. of Korea (www.aippi.org)

October 25–27AIPLA Annual Meeting, Marriott Wardman Park, Washington, DC (703-415-0780)

December 2–5ASIPI International Congress, Punta de Este, Uruguay (www.asipi.org) December 10IPO PTO Day and Foundation Dinner, Washington, DC (www.ipo.org)

January 30–February 2AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute, Tampa Marriott Waterside Hotel & Marina, Tampa, FL

May 4–8INTA Annual MeetingDallas, TXwww.inta.org

May 15–17AIPLA Spring Meeting, The Westin SeattleSeattle, WA

October 24–26AIPLA Annual Meeting, Marriott Wardman Park, Washington, DC

January 29–February 1AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute, Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa, Phoenix, AZ

October 23–25AIPLA Annual Meeting, Marriott Wardman ParkWashington, DC

Future Meetings Calendar

2013

2014

2012


ALABAMA ......................................................... 6.90ALASKA ............................................................ 7.00ARIZONA .......................................................... 7.00ARKANSAS ...................................................... 7.00CALIFORNIA .................................................... 7.00COLORADO ..................................................... 8.00CONNECTICUT ............................................... 7.00DELAWARE ...................................................... 7.00FLORIDA ............................................................ 8.5GEORGIA ......................................................... 6.90IDAHO .............................................................. 6.75ILLINOIS ........................................................... 7.00INDIANA ........................................................... 6.90IOWA ................................................................ 7.00KANSAS ........................................................... 8.00KENTUCKY ...................................................... 7.00

LOUISIANA ....................................................... 6.91MAINE .............................................................. 6.90MINNESOTA ..................................................... 6.75MISSISSIPPI .................................................... 6.90MISSOURI ........................................................ 7.50MONTANA ........................................................ 7.00NEBRASKA ...................................................... 6.92NEVADA ........................................................... 7.00NEW HAMPSHIRE ........................................... 7.25NEW JERSEY .................................................. 8.30NEW MEXICO .................................................. 7.00NEW YORK ...................................................... 8.50N. CAROLINA ................................................... 6.50N. DAKOTA ..............................................................OHIO ................................................................ 6.75OKLAHOMA ..................................................... 8.50

OREGON .......................................................... 7.50PENNSYLVANIA ............................................... 7.00RHODE ISLAND ............................................... 8.30S. CAROLINA ................................................... 6.92TENNESSEE .................................................... 7.25TEXAS .............................................................. 7.00UTAH ................................................................ 7.00VERMONT ........................................................ 7.00VIRGINIA .......................................................... 7.00WASHINGTON ................................................. 7.00W. VIRGINIA ..................................................... 8.30WISCONSIN ..................................................... 8.00WYOMING ........................................................ 7.00

2011 Chemical Patent Practice Road Show • Chicago Marriott DowntownChicago, IL • June 23, 2011

ALABAMA ....................................................... 13.30ALASKA .......................................................... 13.30ARIZONA ........................................................ 13.00ARKANSAS .................................................... 13.25CALIFORNIA .................................................. 13.25COLORADO ................................................... 16.00CONNECTICUT ............................................. 13.00DELAWARE .................................................... 15.90FLORIDA ........................................................ 16.00GEORGIA ....................................................... 13.30IDAHO ............................................................ 13.25ILLINOIS ......................................................... 13.25INDIANA ......................................................... 13.30IOWA .............................................................. 13.25KANSAS ......................................................... 15.00KENTUCKY .................................................... 13.25

LOUISIANA ..................................................... 13.25MAINE ............................................................ 13.25MINNESOTA ................................................... 13.25MISSISSIPPI .................................................. 13.30MISSOURI ...................................................... 15.90MONTANA ...................................................... 13.25NEBRASKA .................................................... 13.25NEVADA ......................................................... 13.00NEW HAMPSHIRE ......................................... 13.50NEW JERSEY ................................................ 15.90NEW MEXICO ................................................ 13.00NEW YORK .................................................... 15.50N. CAROLINA ................................................. 13.25N. DAKOTA ..................................................... 13.25OHIO .............................................................. 13.25OKLAHOMA ................................................... 15.50

OREGON ........................................................ 14.25PENNSYLVANIA ............................................. 13.00RHODE ISLAND ............................................. 15.90S. CAROLINA ................................................. 13.25TENNESSEE .................................................. 13.50TEXAS ............................................................ 13.25UTAH .............................................................. 13.00VERMONT ...................................................... 13.30VIRGINIA ........................................................ 13.00WASHINGTON ............................................... 13.25W. VIRGINIA ................................................... 15.90WISCONSIN ................................................... 15.50WYOMING ...................................................... 13.25

2011 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Seminar • Hilton Alexandria Old TownAlexandria, VA • June 25–26, 2011

ALABAMA ......................................................... 6.50ALASKA ............................................................ 6.50ARIZONA .......................................................... 6.50ARKANSAS ...................................................... 6.50CALIFORNIA .................................................... 6.50COLORADO ..................................................... 8.00CONNECTICUT ............................................... 6.50DELAWARE ...................................................... 6.50FLORIDA .......................................................... 8.00GEORGIA ......................................................... 6.50IDAHO .............................................................. 6.50ILLINOIS ........................................................... 6.50INDIANA ........................................................... 6.50IOWA ................................................................ 6.50KANSAS ........................................................... 7.50KENTUCKY ...................................................... 6.50

LOUISIANA ....................................................... 6.50MAINE .............................................................. 6.50MINNESOTA ..................................................... 6.50MISSISSIPPI .................................................... 6.50MISSOURI ........................................................ 7.80MONTANA ........................................................ 6.50NEBRASKA ...................................................... 6.50NEVADA ........................................................... 6.50NEW HAMPSHIRE ........................................... 6.50NEW JERSEY .................................................. 7.80NEW MEXICO .................................................. 6.50NEW YORK ...................................................... 7.50N. CAROLINA ................................................... 6.50N. DAKOTA ....................................................... 6.60OHIO ................................................................ 6.50OKLAHOMA ..................................................... 8.00


2011 Electronics and Computer Patent Law Summit • William Mitchell College of LawSt. Paul, MN • August 16, 2011

CLE Information


2011 Annual Meeting • Marriott Wardman Park HotelWashington, DC • October 20–22, 2011

ALABAMA ......................................................... 3.80ALASKA ............................................................ 3.75ARIZONA .......................................................... 3.75ARKANSAS ...................................................... 3.75CALIFORNIA .................................................... 3.75COLORADO ..................................................... 5.00CONNECTICUT ......................................................DELAWARE ...................................................... 3.80FLORIDA .................................................................GEORGIA ......................................................... 3.70 IDAHO .............................................................. 3.75ILLINOIS ........................................................... 3.75INDIANA ........................................................... 3.80IOWA ................................................................ 3.75KANSAS ........................................................... 4.50KENTUCKY ...................................................... 3.75

LOUISIANA ....................................................... 3.75MAINE .............................................................. 3.75MINNESOTA ..................................................... 3.75MISSISSIPPI .................................................... 3.80MISSOURI ........................................................ 4.50MONTANA ........................................................ 2.50NEBRASKA ...................................................... 3.75NEVADA ........................................................... 3.50NEW HAMPSHIRE ........................................... 3.75NEW JERSEY .................................................. 4.50NEW MEXICO .................................................. 3.75NEW YORK ...................................................... 4.50N. CAROLINA ................................................... 3.75N. DAKOTA ....................................................... 3.75OHIO ................................................................ 3.75OKLAHOMA ..................................................... 4.40


Partnering in Patents • US Patent & Trademark OfficeAlexandria, VA • October 19, 2011

ALABAMA ............................................... 15.30 (1.0)ALASKA .................................................. 15.20 (1.0)ARIZONA ................................................ 15.25 (1.0)ARKANSAS ............................................ 15.25 (1.0)CALIFORNIA .......................................... 15.25 (1.0)COLORADO ........................................... 18.00 (1.2)CONNECTICUT ......................................................DELAWARE ............................................ 18.30 (1.2)FLORIDA ................................................ 18.00 (1.0)GEORGIA ............................................... 15.20 (1.0) IDAHO ............................................................ 14.75ILLINOIS ................................................. 15.25 (1.0)INDIANA ................................................. 15.30 (1.0)IOWA ...................................................... 15.25 (1.0)KANSAS ................................................. 16.00 (1.0)KENTUCKY ............................................ 14.70 (1.0)

LOUISIANA ............................................. 15.25 (1.0)MAINE .................................................... 15.25 (1.0)MINNESOTA ........................................... 14.75 (1.0)MISSISSIPPI .......................................... 15.30 (1.0)MISSOURI .............................................. 18.10 (1.0)MONTANA .............................................. 15.25 (1.0)NEBRASKA ............................................ 15.00 (1.0)NEVADA ................................................. 15.00 (1.0)NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................. 15.50 (1.0)NEW JERSEY ........................................ 18.30 (1.2)NEW MEXICO ........................................ 15.00 (1.0)NEW YORK ............................................ 18.00 (1.0)N. CAROLINA ......................................... 14.75 (1.0)N. DAKOTA ............................................. 15.25 (1.0)(1.0) OHIO .............................................. 14.75 (1.0)OKLAHOMA ........................................... 17.50 (1.0)

OREGON ........................................................ 16.00PENNSYLVANIA ..................................... 15.00 (1.0)RHODE ISLAND ..................................... 18.30 (1.2)S. CAROLINA ......................................... 16.00 (1.0)TENNESSEE .......................................... 15.50 (1.0)TEXAS .................................................... 15.25 (1.0)UTAH ...................................................... 15.00 (1.0)VERMONT .............................................. 15.20 (1.0)VIRGINIA ................................................ 15.50 (1.0)WASHINGTON ....................................... 15.25 (1.0)W. VIRGINIA ........................................... 18.30 (1.2)WISCONSIN ........................................... 17.50 (1.0)WYOMING .............................................. 15.25 (1.0)

Ethics credit is indicated in parentheses and is included in the total.

2011 Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers • Hilton Alexandria Old TownAlexandria, VA • August 25–26, 2011

ALABAMA ............................................... 15.30 (1.5)ALASKA .................................................. 15.30 (1.5)ARIZONA ................................................ 15.25 (1.5)ARKANSAS ............................................ 15.25 (1.5)CALIFORNIA .......................................... 15.25 (1.5)COLORADO ........................................... 18.00 (1.8)CONNECTICUT ......................................................DELAWARE ............................................ 14.30 (1.5)FLORIDA ................................................ 18.50 (2.0)GEORGIA ............................................... 15.20 (1.5) IDAHO .................................................... 13.75 (0.5)ILLINOIS ................................................. 15.25 (2.0)INDIANA ................................................. 15.30 (1.5)IOWA ...................................................... 15.25 (0.5)KANSAS ................................................. 17.50 (1.5)KENTUCKY ............................................ 15.25 (1.5)

LOUISIANA .................................................15.25 (*)MAINE .................................................... 15.25 (1.5)MINNESOTA ........................................... 14.75 (0.5)MISSISSIPPI .......................................... 15.30 (1.5)MISSOURI .............................................. 17.70 (0.6)MONTANA .............................................. 15.25 (1.5)NEBRASKA ............................................ 15.00 (2.0)NEVADA ................................................. 15.00 (1.5)NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................. 16.00 (1.5)NEW JERSEY ........................................ 18.30 (1.8)NEW MEXICO ........................................ 15.25 (1.5)NEW YORK ............................................ 16.00 (2.0)N. CAROLINA ......................................... 15.25 (1.5)N. DAKOTA ............................................. 15.25 (1.5)OHIO ...................................................... 15.25 (1.5)OKLAHOMA ........................................... 18.00 (0.5)

OREGON .................................................. 16.00 (**)PENNSYLVANIA ..................................... 15.50 (1.5)RHODE ISLAND ..................................... 18.30 (1.8)S. CAROLINA ......................................... 15.25 (1.5)TENNESSEE .................................. 15.75 (1.5 dual)TEXAS .................................................... 15.25 (1.5)UTAH ...................................................... 15.00 (1.5)VERMONT .............................................. 15.25 (1.5)VIRGINIA ................................................ 15.50 (0.5)WASHINGTON ....................................... 15.25 (1.5)W. VIRGINIA ........................................... 18.30 (1.8)WISCONSIN ........................................... 18.00 (1.5)WYOMING .............................................. 15.25 (1.5)

Ethics credit is indicated in parentheses and is included in the total.

* 1 Professionalism; 0.5 Ethics** 14.5 General; 0.5 Ethics; 1.0 E/B


Thank You to Our AIPLA 2011 Annual Meeting SponsorsPlatinum

Silver

Crystal

Dickstein Shapiro LLPSponsor: Post Meeting CD-DVD

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & ScintoSponsor: Cyber Café

Jones DaySponsor: Women in IP Law Breakfast

Kenyon & Kenyon, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Perkins Coie, LLPSponsor: Friday Afternoon Coffee Break

PirkeyBarber, LLPCo-Sponsor: Friday Night Dinner Entertainment Jamison IP Services

Sponsor: Solo Practitioners & Small Firm Reception

Mei & MarkCo-Sponsor: LGBT & Diversity Reception

GoldSchwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, PASponsor: New Member/First-Time Attendee Reception

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLPSponsor: Friday Night Dessert ReceptionCo-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity ReceptionCo-Sponsor: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Reception

United Trademark & Patent ServicesCo-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity ReceptionCo-Sponsor: Opening Night ReceptionCo-Sponsor: Friday Night DinnerSponsor: Meeting Signage

BronzeBaker Botts, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Bingham McCutchen, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Edwards Wildman Palmer, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Mayer Brown, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Morrison & Foerster, LLPCo-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception

McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd.Sponsor: Friday Lunch Recep-tion

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLPSponsor: Thursday Lunch Reception

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLPSponsor: Friday Morning Coffee Break


Thank You to Our AIPLA 2011 Annual Meeting Sponsors Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Mibrath Gilchrist, PA

Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Borden Ladner Gervais, LLPSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & ReceptionSponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner

Bracewell & Giuliani, LLPCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, PCSponsor in part: Copyright Committee Reception

E.A. Renfroe & Company Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner

Fish & Richardson, PCSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

George Mason University School of Law Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, LLP Sponsor in part: Copyright Committee Reception

Jacobson Holman, PLLCSponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner

The Kenrich Group, LLCSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

King & Spalding Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Leonard Patel, PCCo-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLPSponsor in part: Copyright Committee Meeting Reception

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLPSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & ReceptionSponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner

S.S. Rana & Co. AdvocatesSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Saliwanchik, Lloyd & EisenschenkSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Smart & Biggar/FetherstonhaughSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner

Stites & Harbison, PLLCSponsor in part: Copyright Committee Reception

Sughrue Mion, PLLCSponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

The Treadstone Group, Inc.Co-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception

Pearl


The 39th Annual

Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition

Regional CompetitionsMarch 16 - 18, 2012

Boston – Chicago – Houston – Silicon Valley

National Finals CompetitionApril 18 - 20, 2012

Washington, DC

National First Place:AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich

Memorial Award - $2,000

National Second Place:Irving Marcus Award - $1,000

Sponsored by:

American Intellectual Property Law Association

For More Information, Visit www.aipla.org

Presenting Problems in Intellectual Property Law


Presents:

2012RobeRt C. Watson Competition

To be eligible for consideration, the article must have

been written solely by a student or students either in

full-time attendance at a law school (day or evening) or

prepared in connection with a law school course. The

article must be submitted to the American Intellectual

Property Law Association on or before June 30, 2012.

Papers should be approximately the equivalent of 10

law review pages, including footnotes (30–40 pages

typed copy). Submission must be made in PDF or text

format. Submission must include the submitter’s

name, current address, current telephone number,

and employment information, if applicable.

Judges will consider the merit of the article as a

contribution to the knowledge respecting intellectual

property and the extent to which it displays original

and creative thought or information not previously

written or published by the author prior to July 1, 2011.

Reasonable expenses will be reimbursed to the

author of the winning paper to travel to Washington,

DC to receive the Watson Award on October 26, 2012.

Submit articles to:

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Watson Award Competition

[email protected]

Award: $2,000Submission Deadline: June 30, 2012

The award will be presented Friday, October 26, 2012 during the AIPLA Annual Meeting Luncheon in Washington, DC.

Author of best article on a subject relating to the protection of intellectual property written or published between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012.

For More Information, Visit www.aipla.org


When you have the best thing sinceU.S. Patent No. 1,867,377*

you need patent attorneys whoare a slice above the rest.

*A machine for slicing an entire loaf of bread at a single operation. Filed 11/26/28 by Otto F. Rohwedder; Patent Issued 7/12/32.

Minneapolis • Silicon Valley • Austinwww.slwip.com612-373-6900

(A Professional Association)


2011 Annual Meeting

Leadership

AIPLA

Q. Todd Dickinson – Executive Director

William Barber – President-Elect

Wayne Sobon – Officer-in-Charge & Second Vice President

David Hill – President

Steve Malin – Program Chair

Manny W. Schecter – Program Vice Chair

Speakers

Chad Pannell

Hon. Patrick Leahy,US Senate (D-Vt)

Hon. Karen Kuhlke,Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, USPTO

Hon. David Kappos,Under Secretary of Commerce & Director of the USPTO

Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights

Hon. Klaus Grabinski,Bundesgerichtshof

Hon. Kevin Turner, Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences

Hon. Kent Jordan,US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Kelly Slavitt

Hon. Sharon Prost,US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Caleb Gabriel

Hon. Pauline Newman,US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Chenyan Wu Alan Ratliff


More Speakers...

Dinesh MelwaniChristopher Seaman

Andrew Schaeffer

Blake Reese

Kristin Jordan HankinsJ. Timothy MeigsGreg Allen

Monica BaroneMark D. JanisLeah Chan Grinvald

Steve MillerRaymond Chen,Deputy General Counsel for IP Law &

Solicitor, USPTOAIPLA Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson talks with USPTO Director David Kappos during Thursday’s Luncheon.

AIPLA Awardees

President David Hill presenting the awards

Jordan BakerKevin BatesRebecca EisingerSeth RappaportMark PilaroMyriah HabeebTadesse HailuScott HauglandHarry HongJames Hook

Wensing KuoHuyen LeRobert StruckJaclyn Kidwell WalkerKelly ChoeKatherine ChangJeanine GoldbergLaura HammelKevin KernsTimothy Maust

Jimmy NguyenKaj OlsenMaurina RachubaMariceli SantiagoSandra SnappJohn SotomayorKarl TamaiShane ThomasHai TranCherie Woodward

2011 USPTO Awardees

Anthony BoguckiAngela ColesWilliam DerricksonKaren GarnerWinston Kelly

Wendi MaloneyJohn A. NewtonRichard OffuttKarin Sweet

2011 Copyright Awardees

AIPLA salutes the outstanding contributions of the dedicated USPTO &

Copyright Office employees



AIPLA’s Student, Mentor of the Year, Project & President’s Outstanding Service Awards

2011 Robert C. Watson Award Recipient, James Freedman

2011 Mentor of the Year, J. Michael Martinez de Andino

2011 Jan Jancin Award Recipient, Andrew Sellars

AIPLA’s Inaugural Maurice Klitzman Award Recipient, Sean Ricks

AIPLA Project Award presented to Michele K. Herman

In recognition of her outstanding service to the American Intellectual Property Law Association and particularly for her imprint on standards and AIPLA’s role and her expert recommendations to the Board as Co-Chair of the Special Committee on Standards and Open Source.

AIPLA Project Award presented to Ehab M. Samuel

In recognition of his outstanding service to the American Intellectual Property Law Association and par-ticularly for his work as the Chair of the Young Lawyers Committee.

AIPLA Project Award presented to Patrick J. Coyne

In recognition of his outstanding service to the American Intellectual Property Law Association, particularly in his leadership as Chair of the Amicus Committee for three years and Co-Chair of the Special Committee on Legislation.

AIPLA President’s Outstanding Service Award, presented to

John B. Pegram

In recognition of and with gratitude for his years of service to AIPLA, as a

member and committee leader.

AIPLA Excellence Award2011 Excellence Award Winner, Donald R. Dunner

AIPLA President David Hill (L) presents Donald Dunner with the AIPLA Excellence Award, in recognition of extraordinary leadership and service to the Intellectual Property Community, which is representative of a distinguished career marked by intellect, integrity and unwaver-ing commitment to the administration of justice.



Welcome New Members and First-Time Attendees

AIPLA would like to thank the sponsor of the New Member/First-Time Attendee Reception:

Opening Night Reception

AIPLA would like to thank the Co-sponsors of the Opening Night Reception:


Friday Dinner & Entertainmentfeaturing Mark Rivera

AIPLA would like to thank the Co-sponsors of the Friday Dinner & Entertainment:



Dessert Reception

AIPLA would like to thank the sponsor of the Dessert Reception:



LGBT/Diversity Reception

AIPLA would like to thank the Co-sponsors of the LGBT/Diversity Reception:M Mei & Mark LLP

Women in IP Law Breakfast

AIPLA would like to thank the sponsor of the Women in IP Law Breakfast:


Other Receptions

AIPLA would like to thank the sponsors of the Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers and Small Firm/Solo Practitioners Receptions:


Doppelt,Milbrath &Gilchrist, p.a.

Allen, Dyer,


Los AngeLes | new York | orAnge CountY | siLiCon VALLeY | stAmford | wAshington, dC

making the most of your intellectual property isn’t simple. it takes business savvy, technical expertise, and a sound legal strategy. dickstein shapiro provides decades of patent and trademark litigation know-how with global procurement and asset management services. our iP team of 100 dedicated attorneys includes more than 70 with technical degrees, and 17 with first-chair jury trial experience.

Gary M. Hoffman, Partner(202) [email protected]

Powerful Ideas.A Powerhouse IP Team.


VISIONAIPLA will expand its role as an innovator, powerful advocate, and visible global leader in intellectual property through our commitment to education, outreach, member service, and advocacy.

MISSIONWe serve our members, fostering their professional and leadership development, helping nurture and mentor them as they advance within our profession, keeping them informed in an ever-evolving legal environment, and enriching the diversity of the profession in which we practice, while responding to their personal and professional needs;

We serve public policy leaders, whose mission is to develop, implement and maintain our intellectual property system, assisting them with objective and unbiased analysis, and helping establish and maintain fair and effective global laws and policies that stimulate and reward innovation and creative works in keeping with the public interest;

We serve the public, providing education as to the daily value and benefits of a strong intellectual property system that fosters incentives for creativity & innovation, while balancing the public’s interest in healthy competition, reasonable costs and basic fairness; and

We serve our association and its employees, providing sound management, financial stability, stable succession, and a vibrant, respectful and collaborative workplace environment, delivering opportunities and support for all to lead, create and thrive.

STRATEGIC GOALSAdvocacy: AIPLA will provide crucial leadership and unbiased analysis leading the way for world-class policy and decision-making, while attracting membership, ideas, and resources as a highly sought after and respected thought leader.

Public Education: AIPLA will educate the public about the daily value of intellectual property so that its importance is understood and appreciated.

Member Service: AIPLA will support the professional and intellectual growth of its members through a flexible organizational framework and innovative channels of communication, delivering outstanding services, cost-effective programs and mentoring opportunities, thereby ensuring that AIPLA remains the premier intellectual property association, and attracts IP professionals from around the world.

Global Outreach: AIPLA will expand its influence to the global community and provide leadership and guidance for the development of sound global intellectual property standards, laws and policies.

AIPLA 2010-2013 Strategic Plan


Alternative Dispute ResolutionChair: Harrie SamarasVice Chair: Stephen C. Durant

Attending the meeting in person were the Committee Vice Chair, Stephen Durant, as well as Greg Whitehair, Bill Frank, David Sosnowski, Rodney Caldwell, Jason Stone, and Colleen Schaller. Attending by phone were the Committee Chair, Harrie Samaras, as well as Molly Richard, Charles Miller, Susan Beaubien, and Vicki Veenker. The following is a summary of the main issues attendees covered at the meeting.

Program Proposal AIPLA 2012 Annual MeetingIn line with the AIPLA’s Global Outreach and Public Education strategic goals, the ADR Committee is interested in planning a program for the 2012 Annual Meeting relating to international arbitration. The topics that the Committee is considering for the program include: recent changes to the rules of international arbitral institutions, options for information exchange in international arbitrations, and practice pointers and strategies in international arbitration for intellectual property and business and technology cases. The Committee is considering partnering with another committee for this program (e.g., Litigation, international).

Committee Teleconferences/Committee CLE Meetings/Quarterly Conference CallsAttendees discussed other topics they are interested in learning more about through teleconferences, Committee CLE meetings and, more informally, in quarterly conference calls. These include:

1. Drafting ADR Clauses – A seminar on how to draft arbitration clauses for license agreements suitable for various jurisdictions under various arbitration rules. Issues covered would include differences in law to be applied (e.g.,

common law versus civil law).

2. ADR Practice Issues – Topics discussed included: (a) contrasting ADR in different countries; (b) use of ENE or mini trial in IP cases; (c) mediation of trademark disputes; (d) a CLE seminar with another Committee (e.g., Trademark or Copyright Committee) on the use of ADR in various areas of IP; (e) speaker from the International Mediation Institute (IMI) to speak on IMI certification; and (f) speakers from different ADR institutions (e.g., ICDR, AAA, ICC) to discuss ADR under their rules and procedures.

3. Mandatory Arbitration/Mediation – Look at where this is used domestically (e.g., mediation in the Federal Circuit, ITC and federal district courts) and internationally, and how effective it is. Other related topics are: (a) “How mandatory is mandatory ADR?” The topic could explore whether parties are serious or just going through the motions so they can ‘check the box’ saying they’ve completed mandatory ADR; and (b) “You have been ordered to mandatory arbitration/mediation, now what?”

Participation The Chair/Vice Chair solicited input for participation in the initiatives discussed above.

AmicusChair: Edward Robert ReinesVice Chair: Jerry R. Selinger

The Committee met to discuss the status of certain pending matters and how better to implement the overall mission of the Committee, including with respect to non-patent-related issues.

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe Committee’s overall mission is to scrutinize judicial and

Committee Reports Annual MeetingOctober 19-21, 2011

The Committees were asked to align their reports with the goals in the AIPLA Strategic Plan.

(See page 43 for the Strategic Plan.)


administrative decisions which involve significant issues of law or practice which affect intellectual property, and make recommendations to the Board that amicus briefs be filed (or not filed) in appropriate circumstances. The mission involves its own due diligence, as well as responding to requests from party advocates, members of substantive Committees, and the Board. The Committee also makes recommendations to the Board as to brief drafters, and members often volunteer their services pro bono to do so.

AdvocacyAs set forth above, much of the Committee’s work relates to advocacy and member services. The Committee routinely seeks input from whichever substantive Committees might have interest in a judicial or administrative decision, including but not limited to the Patent Law Committee, the Patent Litigation Committee, the Copyright Law Committee, the Trademark Law Committee, the Antitrust Law Committee, the Chemical Practice Committee, the Electronic and Computer Law Committee, and the Trademark Litigation Committee.

Member Service See above. In addition, briefs filed by AIPLA are posted on its website.

Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-PiracyChair: Jonathan HudisVice Chair: Crystal Gothard (not pictured)

AdvocacyIn May 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or PROTECT IP Act, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2011). The PROTECT IP Act authorizes the Justice Department, upon notice to affected parties, to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the Court that the site is dedicated to infringing activities. The Act also authorizes a rights holder (i.e., a trademark or copyright owner) who is the

victim of the infringement, upon notice to affected parties, to bring an action against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domestic or foreign, and to seek a Court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domain name. In September 2011, our Committee obtained the AIPLA Board’s unanimous approval of a resolution in which the Association favors passage of the PROTECT IP Act, or similar legislation, which targets the most egregious actors of online infringement, copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.

Member Service At the AIPLA Annual Meeting, our Committee presented a 1-hour educational session entitled “Making Your Counterfeiting Case Stick.” The session was focused upon techniques that seasoned practitioners have used to combat acts of counterfeiting. The speakers on our panel were Douglas Rettew of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP and Jacqueline Simmons of Baker & Daniels, LLP. The panel was moderated by Committee Chair, Jonathan Hudis, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP.

Antitrust LawChair: Richard S. TaffetVice Chair: George G. Gordon (not pictured)

The Committee focuses on competition issues involving intellectual property in the United States and worldwide. In recent years, the Committee has especially focused on issues pertaining to standardization of technology, generic pharmaceuticals, and actions by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. The Committee has participated in amicus briefs on competition issues, and publishes a newsletter for each AIPLA meeting with articles contributed by its members.


BiotechnologyChair: James J. KelleyVice Chair: Carol Nielsen

Subcommittees:International Issues SubcommitteeAnne Marie Verschuur, Chair Qin Shi, Vice Chair, Far East, China, Japan, India Rafael Pastor, Vice Chair, Latin America Rene Raggers, Vice Chair, Europe Noel Courage, Vice Chair, Canada & Australia Biological Product Development and Competition Subcommittee Andrea Hutchison, Co-Chair Kristin Connarn, Co-Chair Vicki Norton, Co-Chair Biotech Tech Transfer & Licensing Eric Mirabel, Co-Chair Noel Courage, Co-Chair WebinarOn December 6, the Committee presented a webinar titled “Obtaining and Enforcing Patents on Bioinformatic and Diagnostic Inventions.” The webinar reprised presentations given at the AIPLA Annual Meeting by Jim Kelley of Eli Lilly and Company, Judy Roesler of Roesler Law Offices, and Ling Zhong of RatnerPrestia on recent developments in the law under Sections 101 and 112 and their impact on patenting strategies in bioinformatics and diagnostics. Many thanks to our sponsors, Barnes & Thornburg LLP and RatnerPrestia!

Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting A meeting of the USPTO’s Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership was held on Thursday, December 1, 2011. Topics covered during the meeting included implementation of the USPTO’s America Invents Act, Track 1 prioritized examination, professional responsibility commentary from the OED, training of examiners regarding the Supplemental Guidelines for 35 USC 112, and the proposed changes to Rule 56 in view of the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. The presentations and

notes taken by members of our USPTO Issues Subcommittee are available in the “USPTO Partnership Meetings with BiotechChemPharma” folder at our Committee’s microsite.

Plans for 2012 Mid-Winter Institute Please join us at AIPLA’s Mid-Winter Institute in Las Vegas on January 25, from 5:00-6:00. We are planning a 1-hour panel discussion of issues relating to patenting and enforcing patents on biotechnology in Canada, Europe, and Japan, including biosimilars, sufficiency of disclosure, patenting of genetic materials and other naturally-occurring substances, patenting of stem cells, and patenting of antibodies. Our speakers will be Ayako Kobayaski of TMI Associates (JP), Daphne Lianson of Smart & Biggar (CA), and John Allen of NautaDutilh (EP). After the panel discussion, the Committee will informally continue discussion with the panelists and socialize together from 6:00-7:00 at a nearby pub.

International DevelopmentsIP Practice in Latin America Committee Forms Subcommittee The IP Practice in Latin America Committee recently formed a Subcommittee for Biotechnology Issues in Latin America. The Chair of the Subcommittee is Benny Spiewak, Managing Partner of ZCBS - Zancaner Costa, Bastos e Spiewak in Sao Paulo Brazil and the Vice Chair is Juan F. Reyes, Senior Associate, Sargent & Krahn in Santiago, Chile. Benny will serve as liaison between our two Committees and will also facilitate communications between the Latin American section of our International Issues Subcommittee and the members of the new Latin American Subcommittee.

Korea Takes First Step Toward Patent-Regulatory Linkage The Korean Assembly ratified the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement on November 22, 2011, including amendments to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law (PAL) that introduce a patent linkage system - basically, the idea behind the US Orange Book. The Korean linkage system will not be restricted essentially to non-biological drugs, as is the Orange Book. Thus, companies marketing or seeking marketing authorization for biological products in Korea should consider listing patents under the new law. Some of the important aspects of the new law follow.

The deadline to submit patent information to the Korea Food and Drug Administration (“KFDA”) is three months from the effective date of the KORUS FTA (January 1, 2012) for products approved before that date and 30 days from product approval for later-approved products.

To be listed, a patent must relate to a substance, formulation, composition, or medical use only, be directly relevant to the active ingredient, dosage form, efficacy, or method of use of the approved product, and be directly relevant to the safety,


efficacy and quality information in the application approved by the KFDA. The listing must be on a claim-by-claim basis depending on relevance to the approved drug product and thus, a detailed explanation of each claim as it relates to the product must be submitted to the KFDA. Completing the patent listing process within the timeframes may require significant efforts and time and need to begin as soon as possible.

Generic companies seeking approval on the basis of prior approval of a reference drug after the implementation date who want to challenge listed patents must notify market authorization holders and patent holders of the submission of their generic applications within seven days of filing them and must provide with the notice detailed statements explaining any claimed non-infringement and invalidity of the listed patents. Generic companies that will wait until patent expiry to market drugs need not provide notice. Measures to stay approval of generic applications that challenge patents with remaining patent terms are not part of this round of amendments but will be instituted within three years from the implementation date of the system. A translation of the regulations can be found at the Biotechnology Committee’s site.

UK Patent Reform to be Proposed to Clarify Experimental Use Exceptions to Infringement The UK government is expected to amend UK patent law so that the risk of patent infringement is avoided for activities relating to clinical or field trials activities. This position was taken following a consultation with industry that led the UK IP Office to issue a report stating that that the current wording of the Bolar exemption and experimental use sections of the Patents Act 1 does put some parties at risk of patent infringement when preparing and running clinical trials involving innovative drugs. The UKIPO will go out with a formal consultation on a proposal to amend the UK Patents Act 1977 to exempt from infringement activities involved in clinical or field trials. This will include options for exempting activities relating to regulatory approval of a drug product or activities relating to public health issues. The UK IPO Office report is available at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-2011-bolar.pdf.

Chemical PracticeChair: William B. KezerVice Chair: Jeffrey N. Townes

The Chemical Practice Committee continues to provide information on current developments in IP law, recent litigations, and latest technologies. Programs in 2011 have examined areas unique to chemical patent practice, and explored technical and legal issues from a chemical practitioner’s perspective. Similar programs are designed for 2012.

At the 2011 Annual Meeting, we joined with IP Practice of Europe Committee to give a presentation on written description, enablement, and the law of sufficiency/description globally. In particular, the focus will be on the differences between the US, Europe, and Canada. This continued programs we have put together analyzing the similarities and differences in chemical patent law in various regions around the world. Last year’s spring Committee meeting focused on various countries in the Far East, including Japan, Taiwan and China, and Singapore, and last year’s Mid-Winter Committee meeting focused on various aspects of European law, all as they particularly relate to chemical patent practitioners.

Our panel of speakers for the meeting included: Adrian Zahl of Rideout Maybee (Canada) with a presentation entitled “Written Description” Requirements in Canada; David Wilson of the HerbertSmith firm (UK) also discussing Description and Sufficiency in the UK and Europe; and Joerg Uwe-Szipl of Griffin & Szipl, PC, with a presentation entitled “The Written Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph: Showing Possession of the Invention.”

To begin 2012, we are having a panel discussion on IP due diligence in acquisition and/or collaboration efforts. We plan to have speakers address both the large and small company perspectives.

We have also identified Mary Jo Boldingh (Foley) to help our development of a 2013 Road Show, following our successful 2011 effort. William Childs is also preparing a schedule of webinars (2-3) for 2012 on a variety of topics as they relate to chemical patent attorneys. We welcome all suggestions for topics of interest.


Copyright LawChair: Nancy J. MertzelCo-Vice Chairs: Tony Y. Hickey (not pictured) and Stefan Mentzer

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe Copyright Law Committee seeks to increase the number, profile, and involvement level of AIPLA members whose IP interests include copyright law. At the same time, the Committee strives to improve copyright laws and policy, including through its direct work with the US Copyright Office and through judicial and legislative input.

AdvocacyThe Committee has established a working relationship with the US Copyright Office and will play an active role in the Copyright Office’s Priorities and Special Projects announced in the Fall of 2011. These projects include legislative initiatives and alterations to the internal processes of the US Copyright Office that will benefit copyright law practitioners and the public at large. The Committee also serves as informal “counsel” to the Amicus Committee on matters relating to copyright law and extends participation by its Chair in the Special Legislation Committee.

Public EducationThe Committee has increased the level of CLE-qualifying copyright programming included in AIPLA programs. The Committee’s microsite includes case law summaries prepared in connection with copyright case law of note in the field.

Member ServiceThe Committee provides case summaries of interest to copyright law practitioners through its microsite. It also provides a forum to meet and to interact with fellow practitioners, copyright claimants, and representatives of US government responsible for promulgating copyright law policy. One example is the Annual Meeting Copyright Law Committee Reception where Register of the US Copyright Office Maria Pallante addressed and mingled with AIPLA members and guests.

Global OutreachThe Committee is currently exploring the nomination of a representative to attend, as appropriate, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) meetings held in Geneva, Switzerland on behalf of the AIPLA.

Corporate PracticeChair: Kenneth M. Seddon (not pictured)Vice Chair: James D. Carruth

This Committee develops programming and disseminates information relating to intellectual property law and practice that is particularly useful to corporate lawyers.

2011 Accomplishments• We co-sponsored various CLE presentations at the

AIPLA stated meetings and will continue to seek out opportunities for our corporate members to speak on topics of interest.

• We co-sponsored the Klitzman Award with the Mentoring Committee and Young Lawyers Committee. The Award will be used to identify and encourage junior corporate attorneys to become active in AIPLA by providing an award to attend an AIPLA Annual Meeting. Sean Ricks at Vivint was the first recipient and he attended the Annual Meeting in DC in October.

2012 Plans• We are sponsoring a Corporate Attorney Breakfast at

the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute to provide a solicitation-free zone for in-house attorneys to network and hear from panelists on changes their companies are making to address the changes brought about by AIA.

• We are working to develop content for a session at the 2012 Annual Meeting.

• We are holding monthly committee meetings to discuss business and topics of interest to corporate members. We have scheduled the next few months and are looking for additional topics and volunteers to lead a discussion on different topics.


Diversity in IP LawChair: W. Todd BakerVice Chair: Shayne E. O’Reilly

The Committee is working to increase the number of diverse students that enter into the IP profession. Towards this goal, the Committee is reaching out to minority engineering students through a reception at the Annual Meeting. The Committee will also look to partner with engineering schools to reach diverse students throughout the year, through programs hosted at the individual schools. Second, the Committee is working to increase the presence of its members on other Committees and as speakers at the various AIPLA meetings.

EducationChair: Myra H. McCormack (not pictured)Vice Chair: Ehab M. Samuel

2010 Annual MeetingAt the 2010 Annual Meeting, the Education Committee participated in a joint program with the Law Students, Young Lawyers and Mentoring Committees. The program included a panel discussion on networking opportunities by geographic region, mentoring opportunities, and new writing and speaking opportunities available through these Committees. The panel also discussed “A Day in the Life of an IP Attorney,” highlighting different aspects of their IP practice. Additionally, the joint Committees co-hosted a reception immediately following the session. The program was well-attended by a cross section of law students, junior/senior -level associates, and young partners. The panelists provided strategic advice for all of those in attendance, and

answered a wide range of questions.

Annual Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers Program (“Patent Boot Camp”)The Committee coordinates the annual AIPLA Patent Boot Camp, which has been offered for many years. It includes instructional sessions and hands-on claim-drafting workshops taught by experienced private and corporate practitioners. In 2010, the Committee changed the format to a 2-day Boot Camp (from 3-days) to reduce the monetary commitment needed from attendees and to streamline the program. The results were excellent as we increased enrollment substantially from the prior year and received very positive feedback from the attendees. We have also started a Subcommittee for planning of the 2012 Boot Camp.

Annual Trademark Boot CampThe Committee assists the Trademark Committee in organizing the annual Trademark Boot Camp program. Generally following the format of the Patent Boot Camp, the Trademark Boot Camp covers basic trademark prosecution techniques and is primarily directed at young attorneys or attorneys new to the area of trademark prosecution. The 2011 Trademark Boot Camp took place June 10. Plans for the 2012 Trademark Boot Camp are underway and we look forward to another successful program.

Law Professor SubcommitteeThe Committee is committed to expanding the law professor initiative, launched at the 2010 Spring Meeting. Our new IP Law Professor Subcommittee provides a platform for present and future full-time and adjunct IP law professors to discuss resources available to IP law professors, best practices, techniques for getting involved in teaching, and other issues of interest. We are in the process of planning future activities for this initiative for 2012.

Young Lawyers CLE SubcommitteeIn partnership with the Online Programs and Young Lawyers Committees, the Education Committee has launched a new Subcommittee that will provide young lawyers with opportunities to build presentation skills, increase local outreach, and allow for greater involvement in AIPLA. Our vision is to integrate education with the local young lawyers networking events around the country, allowing young attorneys the opportunity to present at their local gatherings while connected via videoconference around the country with young attorney gatherings in other cities.

CLE presenters would necessarily comprise YLC members to further the development of presentation skills and involvement in AIPLA. Critique of the presentations may be included if desired (e.g., by a mentor). The substantive format would include broadcast (e.g., webcast) of CLE consistent with the current practices of AIPLA’s Online Programs Committee,


but would allow for greater participation and involvement by young lawyers.

The Subcommittee is planning for a pilot launch of the Young Lawyers CLE presentation in several cities around the country.

The Coordination Role of the Education CommitteeThe Committee will continue to serve as a communication, networking and teaching resource. The Committee plans to continue its liaison activities with the substantive Committees and hold joint meetings with other Committees on topics of interest to a cross-section of attorneys. We are also planning various activities with other Committees such as the Young Lawyers and Law Students Committees.

If you are interested to learn about how you can get more involved in the AIPLA and the Education Committee, please send an e-mail to Myra H. McCormack at [email protected] and Ehab Samuel at [email protected].

Finally, the Education Committee would like to offer a very special thanks to its outgoing chair, Troy Grabow, and Vice Chair, Hathaway Russell. Under Troy’s and Hathaway’s watch, the Education Committee has expanded its outreach significantly with the addition of the Trademark Boot Camp and the Law Professor Subcommittees. We wish them well on their next leadership roles at AIPLA.

Electronic and Computer LawChair: Jacques L. EtkowiczVice Chair: James D. Hallenbeck (not pictured)

On Friday, October 20, 2011, the ECLC conducted a joint Committee session with the Diversity Committee. Various copyright topics were discussed including:

Shayne E. O’Reilly an associate with Kilpatrick, Townsend, and Stockton LLP and Vice Chair of the Diversity Committee moderated the meeting and introduced the speakers.

Elizabeth Ann “Betty” Morgan, a shareholder of the Morgan Law Firm, PC, provided a review of available statutory damages and discussed how Capital Records v. Thomas-Rasset may change things. Betty set forth the rationale

for statutory damages – (1) because it’s hard to determine actual damages and (2) because of its deterrent effect. Betty informed us that the statutory standard set forth in Williams (St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Williams), not the punitive Gore standard (BMW of North America v. Gore), is the proper standard for the review of statutory damage awards for copyright infringement.

Thomas (Tom) W. Brooke, Partner with Holland and Knight, presented on copyright issues in licensing. His talk included a discussion of common threads, licensee issues, licensor issues, whether a licensee can infringe a copyright, and the availability of copyright versus contract claims in the event of a breach of the software license.

John Cross, a professor at the University of Louisville – Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, presented on recent issues in scraping (extracting data from another’s web site) and other issues on secondary liability. John’s talk provided an overview of scraping, copyright claims and theories, liability under tort based state laws, and secondary liability.

James (Jim) G. Gatto, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, LLP, presented on derivative works based, in part, on open source software. Jim described what open source is and discussed some common open source licenses such as the second general public license (GPL2) and common terms in such licenses.

On October 21, the ECLC leadership held a joint meeting with the directors of the various USPTO Tech Centers related to the electrical and computer arts.

Prior to going over the formal agenda items, the USPTO solicited input from the ECLC on a new examination proposal, if it was viable and how it could be improved. They emphasized it was a conceptual idea in the very early stages and was not planned to be rolled out just yet.

The proposal called for establishing a certified patent examiner (CPE) who would be “licensed” by the USPTO, but would not be an employee of the USPTO. The CPE would be engaged by applicants to examine their applications. After examination by the CPE, the examined application would follow a path similar to applications coming into the US via the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program. The USPTO would continue to examine applications in the usual way, but this would be an alternative path that could be used that may offer more flexibility to applicants. It is expected that this alternate procedure may result in more rapid examination and allowance of applications.

Generally, the ECLC viewed the new examination proposal favorably.

The following topics were also discussed:


Implementation of America Invents ActAndy Faile. Track 1 was discussed. There is a 10,000 application per year cap. Under the program applications are assigned to a TC in 2-3 weeks. So far approximately 800 applications have been filed. The ECLC asked if there was a way to know how close they were to the 10k cap and if an applicant would be first in line the following year if 10k cap exceeded. The USTPO will consider making usage numbers available, e.g., quarterly, and will consider what happens if cap exceeded. The USPTO asked whether the ECLC thought there was a high level of interest among their clients and whether they thought applicants were just using program to get to first examination level faster or would try to stay within program (e.g., file application within deadlines to avoid being removed). It was generally thought that there will be increased interest as people become more aware of and familiar with the program and that applicants that are paying to be in the program will most likely try to stay in the program.

Corp-wide and TC training InitiativesJim Ng. The Patent Examiner Technical Training Program and training programs for new examiners, patent management, continuing education, and legal, practice & procedures were discussed. The ECLC inquired if we could be updated on what training was being provided and when. The USPTO said that training materials are available on-line.

InterviewsTim Callahan. Discussed use of WebEx for remote interviews. ECLC is currently involved in a beta test pilot to perfect the system and provide training materials to end-users. The USPTO solicited comments on its use. Comments from the ECLC partners were favorable.

Patents End-to-EndStakeholders role in new system design? The importance of participation by bar in commenting on the new system was emphasized.

Examination of RCEsAndy Faile. The ECLC was concerned that some RCEs are turned around in 2-3 weeks while others go a year or more without any action. There was a perception by certain members of the ECLC that examiners could only work on one RCE per month. The dockets of examiners were explained and it was emphasized that the requirement was a minimum, not a maximum. Examiners have a regular docket of new cases, which they must select at least one every 28 days. Examiners also have a special docket from which they must select two every 28 days. The special docket includes RCEs and other applications such as “old” applications that compete with the RCEs for the examiners attention.

Status of Peer-to-Patent Jack Harvey. In light of changes in 3rd party submissions of art during prosecution. Approximately 300 have volunteered to participate in the program and the USTPO is looking into motivations for greater participation. The program is going well and those submitting art have been very professional with most identifying who they are even though anonymous submissions are an option.

Ways to improve prosecution efficiencyTim Callahan. This was discussed in the focus session at the Partnering in Patents Program. Suggestions included working on matters in which a response was filed shortly after an Office Action was issued when it was still fresh. The SPEs are going to review the results from the focus session. The group was told that examiners are now using a new workflow system that provides incentives to turn around applications faster.

Also on October 20, the ECLE held a Committee member-only meeting. The committee briefly discussed the electronics & computer patent law summit held August 16, 2011 at the William Mitchell College of Law. Due to the success of this summit, there are plans to have a summit in April/May 2012 in San Diego.

Sub-Committee reports:PTO RelationsLynn Anderson, Mike Dunnam. Topics at the Partnering in Patents program included a morning focus session on how to speed up patent prosecution and an afternoon session on Therasense from the patent bar perspective, why practitioners draft claims the way they do, post-Bilski case law update, and discussion on the mornings focus session.

Webinar Valentina Boyet, Blake Reese, Steve Lundberg. The frustrations experienced by the subcommittee on issues centered on communication and approval of webinars were shared with the AIPLA Board. 3-4 webinars are planned for 2012.

Professional ProgramsJohn Salazar, Michael Drapkin. Topics at the joint meeting on Copyright law planned with the Diversity Committee will include: licensing, scraping and other issues of secondary liability, and derivative works. Plans for a joint meeting with Patent Relations with the USPTO Committee are in progress for the Mid-Winter Institute. We are also considering a litigation-focused meeting at the Spring Meeting.

Miscellaneous topics Jim Hallenbeck expressed a need to clean up the voting roster. In order for a vote to be valid, there must be a quorum


of voting members. Unfortunately, many of the “voting” members do not vote. A voting member can have their status changed to non-voting if they fail to vote in two consecutive votes. There will be two “test” votes sent in the near future. If you want to remain a voting member, respond to the test votes. For Post Grant Review Process information solicited by the USPTO – David Kappos has indicated that he would prefer suggested rules rather than comments.

The goals for the coming year are as follows:

• Continued cooperation with USPTO directors• Partnering in Patents program• Summit in San Diego• 3-4 Webinars• Sessions at every meeting• Continue to work with other less active Committees

John Collins stated that he is retiring and that this would be his last meeting. He was thanked for his past years of service.

Emerging TechnologiesChair: Kirk A. DammanVice Chair: Robert Capriotti (not pictured)

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe mission of the Emerging Technologies Committee (ETC) is to foster communication and education in areas of emerging technologies and IP Law. Committee goals include developing and producing educational programs relating to emerging technologies at the Committee level and at the three national AIPLA meetings.

In addition, the ETC will cover and report on green technology – including climate change – as well as other green tech issues (accelerating green patents, etc.).

Other current emerging technologies identified by the ETC include:• Alternative Fuels• Pharmacogenomics• Open Source• Web 2.0/3.0

• Biomedical• Second Life• Nanotechnology• Customized Stem Cells and Connectomics• Climate Change Technology

Public Education At the October 2011 Annual Meeting, the ETC conducted an extremely successful, standing-room-only, educational session presented by David Boundy of Cantor Fitzgerald, Boston, MA, on the topic of the recently enacted Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (AIA). In particular, Mr. Boundy presented a paper primarily focused on the effects of the AIA on emerging technology businesses including startups, external capital flow, open innovation teaming with other companies. Key issues discussed included first inventor to file advantages and disadvantages, grace periods, ambiguities in the new law, prior user rights, and adaptations.

Member ServiceAt the meeting, attendance was taken and a number of attendees who would like to join the Committee were identified. After the meeting, a few of the meeting attendees met at a local pub for a brief social gathering.

FellowsChair: Sheldon H. KleinVice Chair: William L. LaFuze

Outgoing chair John Wiedemann chaired the meeting in the absence of incoming chair Sheldon Klein. The following was discussed:

Brad Forrest was appointed to be our liaison with the Professional Programs Committee. He has been an active participant in the Professional Programs Committee for some time, and is coordinating an afternoon track for the spring meeting on IDS practice.

There was favorable discussion regarding suggestions for the Fellows to consider becoming involved in some pro bono/community service projects. The suggestions included:


• Educating people on “trademark bullying.”• School programs, such as Law Day, to educate students

regarding what is a patent, use of trademarks, and why it is important to protect the creation of software and music.

• Providing pro bono services for independent inventors (the PTO is apparently considering a pilot program to do this).

• Rapid response team to correct inaccurate media stories.• Opportunities to create Inns of Court (Hal Wegner has

some background).• Help educate small businesses/independent inventors

regarding what inventors can/should do under the AIA to protect their inventions in the U.S. and in foreign countries.

• Join AIPLA special task force on AIA to help respond to the many rules packages that will be coming out.

There was favorable comment on the Fellows becoming more involved with AIPLEF. Phil Hampton will forward some ideas. He thinks the Fellows could play very important mentoring roles with the AIPLEF scholarship winners.

Dave Hill spoke in favor of the Fellows getting involved in recruiting, such as trying to get more AIPLA members from our own firms/companies.

It was unclear whether there is enough interest to have a Fellows dinner at the Mid-Winter Institute. We will decide as the meeting approaches.

Food and DrugChair: Denise M. KettelbergerVice Chair: Stephen B. Parker

The Committee provides a forum for education and professional development in the area of regulatory/FDA law and, in particular, how it intersects with IP law.

The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Industrial DesignsChair: Damon A. Neagle (not pictured)Vice Chair: Garfield Goodrum

The Committee considers design patent, trade dress, and copyright laws, rules, regulations and judicial decisions applicable to the protection of industrial designs. Recent activities have included preparation of amicus briefs on behalf of AIPLA in conjunction with the Amicus Committee and resolutions pertaining to legislation and international treaties for adoption by AIPLA. The Committee also remains active in educational opportunities, including the annual Design Day at the PTO and CLE sessions at AIPLA meetings.


International and Foreign LawChair: William S. BoshnickVice Chair: Matt Adams

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe International and Foreign Law Committee considers the treaties of the United States and foreign countries and the statutes, rules, regulations, and judicial decisions of foreign countries relating to patents, trademarks, copyrights or intellectual property generally. The Committee also considers the statutes, rules, regulations, and judicial decisions of the United States as they may impact intellectual property as a part of trade and commerce between the US and foreign countries nationals. A further role of the Committee is to coordinate with other Committees on matters which are relevant to the jurisdiction of such Committees.


AdvocacyThe Committee coordinates with AIPLA leadership to research and advocate, on the behalf of IP stakeholders, issues potentially affecting foreign rights of such IP stakeholders, by, e.g., submitting position papers on behalf of AIPLA to foreign governmental organizations. Where necessary, the Committee also coordinates with other foreign Committees where the foreign rights are potentially affected.

Public EducationThe Committee occasionally coordinates with the International Education Committee on programs to educate members and the public on issues concerning intellectual property. The Committee intends to organize themed seminars comparing subject matter (computer software/medical devices) and claim structures.

Member ServiceThe Committee serves its members by keeping them informed in an ever-evolving international legal environment.

Global OutreachThe Committee has been instrumental in establishing Subcommittees pertaining to international practice, with the goal of them becoming active Committees. Two recent examples are the Indian Practice Subcommittee and the Special Committee on IP Practice in Israel.

International EducationChair: James E. Ruland (not pictured)Vice Chair: Shannon L. Beech

Mission: The Committee’s current focus is on developing and producing educational programming for international audiences, primarily through online programs on US IP law and practice specifically targeted to practitioners, government officials and others outside the US who are interested in IP law, policy and practice. Additionally, in response to requests, the Committee meets with visiting delegations and arranges for speakers for lectures, seminars, and other meetings outside

the United States. The Committee coordinates its activities with those of the Online Programs, International and Foreign Law, the IP Practice in Europe, the IP Practice in Japan, the IP Practice in Latin America, the IP Practice in the Far East Committees, and the Special Committee of International Practitioner Associations.

Specific Tasks Update and Going Forward:The Committee has conducted five online programs to date, namely three programs for German-speaking practitioners, one program for practitioners in Singapore, and one program for practitioners in China.

The program aimed at practitioners in China was conducted on June 1, 2011 and was performed in coordination with the Special Committee on IP Practice in China. The chosen topic for this particular program was Information Disclosure Statements. This program was very well received and a second program for practitioners in China is planned on the subject of patent reform.

Using the good relationships that have been developed with local German IP Organizations through our German coordinators, we conducted a program for German-speaking practitioners on September 21, 2011 on the topic of patent reform. The program was well received with a total attendance of 175 sites.

The Committee is currently working on organizing a program on the America Invents Act for Pacific Rim countries. The countries that are currently being targeted are Singapore, New Zealand and Australia, with the possibility of including other countries within similar time zones, such as Japan. Respective national IP organizations in these countries are being contacted to determine interest in such a program and determine if they are able to assist us in advertising the program to their members. This program will be put on in the first half of 2012.

Members of the Committee, possibly in conjunction with other substantive committees, will coordinate each of the online programs. Each online program has at least one local (e.g. North American) coordinator, who works with at least one international coordinator, to develop and put on the program. The international coordinator interfaces with the IP organization(s) in their country to establish: (1) a topic of interest for practitioners in the country and (2) mechanisms for marketing and distributing the program through, for example, the local IP organization(s). The local coordinator identifies speakers and sponsors for the program based on the established topic of interest. Most programs will likely be broadcast live using Citrix, though other platforms may be used. The coordinators may work with other AIPLA committees or possibly local IP associations outside the US in planning the program.


GOALS:(1) Produce at least four online programs for international audiences during the year.(2) Recruit additional members to join the Committee. We would especially like to tap into AIPLA’s international members to encourage involvement in AIPLA of those members(3) Explore approaches for expanding audiences for programs. One approach is to establish relationships with IP associations outside the US in order to obtain assistance in promoting and possibly also planning and sponsoring programs. Another related approach is to begin a formal program of promoting our programming services for US IP law to foreign IP associations, including soliciting requests for online programs and offering speakers for local programs.(4) Establish a list of speakers possessing a high degree of proficiency in foreign languages.(5) Coordinate with AIPLA to look for ways the Committee can assist in implementing AIPLA’s international strategies.(6) Work with AIPLA to find a way of making recordings of the online programs available on the website in a location that is easily found by practitioners outside the US who are not AIPLA members outside the US, as well as marketing the existence of the programs to those individuals.(7) Establish more formal working relationships with other international committees for purposes of coordinating international education efforts and producing programming.

International Trade CommissionChair: L. Scott OliverVice Chair: Kim E. Choate

At the AIPLA Annual 2011 Meeting, the Committee offered an educational program entitled, “Leveraging the ITC: Getting in and Getting Results.” Speaking at the event were honored guests Honorable Paul Luckern (prior Chief ALJ of the USITC) and Charles Steuart (of US Customs & Border Protection), who provided valuable insight as to bringing an ITC investigation and enforcing ITC orders at Customs. In addition, Kim Choate of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Bert Reiser of Latham & Watkins provided ITC practitioners’

perspectives and offered listeners practice tips. The presentations were followed by a lively and interactive question and answer session from the 100 plus audience in attendance.

The ITC Committee held its business meeting during the Annual Meeting and was fortunate to have a great mixture of private practitioners, in-house counsel, several USITC employees in attendance to provide their insight, as well as a USPTO employee. The Committee discussed its activities during 2011 and brainstormed goals for 2012. In addition, the Committee discussed recent decisions at the ITC, including recent Federal Circuit decisions, as well as the formation of new Subcommittees to address possible upcoming issues that the ITC may be facing in the upcoming year in view of these new decisions.

The Committee also discussed the new efiling procedures in practice at the ITC, and received commentary from the USITC employees on the benefits of the new proceedings. The Committee also had an interesting discussion regarding the America Invents Act and its potential effect on practice before the ITC. USITC and USPTO employees also gave valuable insight as to how they thought the practice could be changing in the near future.

The last topic the Committee discussed was the educational programs for next year and the revised planning structure in AIPLA’s Professional Programs Committee. The Committee will plan to submit a topic for an educational program for Annual 2012.

IP Law AssociationsChair: Laura J. Zeman-MullenVice Chair: Anthony M. Zupcic

The IP Law Associations Committee works to foster beneficial relationships with regional and local associations in the United States with an interest in IP Law, and encourages cooperation with those associations in educational activities. The Committee also maintains a state-by-state list of the leaders from the regional and local IP associations.

The Committee currently has 3 Subcommittees: the E-mailer


Sub-Committee, the Micro-Site Sub-Committee, and the Regional Roundtable Sub-Committee. The E-mailer Sub-Committee creates e-mails to send to the regional and local associations. The e-mails include AIPLA-related information that may be of interest to the regional and local associations including, for example, Patent and Trademark Boot Camp updates, invitations to the Women in IP Law national dinners, AIPLA’s request to support or oppose legislation or participate as a signatory to an Amicus brief, and opportunities to participate in, and learn results obtained from, regional roundtables put on by the Committee. The Micro-Site Sub-Committee maintains the accuracy of the Committee’s microsite, including developing and updating content with Committee information, reports, and minutes, and increasing accessibility to regional and local associations. The Regional Roundtable Sub-Committee develops discussion topics and organizes and hosts regional roundtable discussions with the leaders of regional and local associations using GoToMeetings, webinars, etc.

Committee members are also assigned to other AIPLA Committees to interface and enhance the relationship between AIPLA and the local and regional associations by providing the local and regional associations with information, initiatives, programs, etc. specific to the various substantive AIPLA committees.

The Committee’s plans and goals for 2012 include:Hosting three regional roundtables in 2012 with the regional and local IP associations in February, May, and September.

The February regional roundtable will focus on various aspects of the recently enacted America Invents Act (AIA), how practitioners are changing their practices in light of the AIA and how regional and local associations are educating the public about the AIA.

Topics for the May and September roundtables will include some of the following: PTO rulemaking and public comments on such new rules, as well as pooling comments on such rules.

Discussion on who from local and regional associations are AIPLA members, why they are members, the benefits they receive or believe they should receive as an AIPLA member, and what AIPLA could provide that would make it worthwhile for them to join as a member or maintain their membership.

Developing speakers and speaker resources for CLE programs.

Ways to coordinate calendars among the regional/local associations.

Approaches for networking among and recruiting young lawyers for the regional/local associations.

Best practices association management.

AIPLA-sponsorship or support for regional/local CLE events.

Feedback from the PTO on “hoteling” of examiners at regional locations, and assistance that might be provided by the regional/local IP associations.

Ways to coordinate, or strengthen the IP bar’s voice in amicus issues, and

Discussion of the AIA Pro Bono Task Force.

At least one of the May or September regional roundtables will explore creating resources for speakers and a topic-specific “speaker pool” that could be made accessible to AIPLA and the local and regional associations.

Distributing up to four emails to the local and regional associations with AIPLA-related information and/or reports from substantive AIPLA Committees, results from regional round tables, and announcements of AIPLA programs, CLEs, and/or initiatives being put forth to meet the goals of AIPLA’s Strategic Plan.

Creating two separate task forces within the Committee to work with the AIPLA Public Education Committee and the AIPLA Membership Committee, respectively, to identify information that could be collected from the regional roundtables and determine how that information could be used to further the public education and member services goals of the AIPLA Strategic Plan. The membership task force may work with AIPLA’s Membership Committee to create a list of AIPLA benefits and develop a plan for gaining more AIPLA members from the local and regional associations. The public education task force will utilize regional and local IP Association Contacts to further the Public Education component of AIPLA’s Strategic Plan.

Utilizing the Committee’s master list of local and regional IP association contacts to further the advocacy goals of AIPLA’s Strategic Plan, e.g. forwarding CapWiz emails from AIPLA on to the local and regional associations.

Maintaining and updating the Committee’s microsite.

Interfacing with the AIPLA substantive Committees and attending substantive Committee meetings to obtain information to disseminate to the local and regional associations.


IP Practice in ChinaChair: William D. “Skip” FisherVice Chair:Ying Tuo

The Committee works to establish and maintain relations with professional societies in China whose members are interested in intellectual property law. The Committee’s members study Chinese law and practice and report on issues of interest to the AIPLA Board of Directors and membership. The Committee also provides information on US intellectual property law to any interested party in China, if called upon to do so.


IP Practice in EuropeCo-Chair: Andrew G. SmithCo-Chair: Joerg-Uwe Szipl

The Committee is an active group of attorneys and agents from the US and Europe that get together for information exchange about European practice. Mainly Europeans inform the US attorneys about the latest developments in European patent and trademark practice. Last spring the Committee organized a good will trip to London and Munich for information exchange with European bar associations, governmental agencies and courts.


IP Practice in the Far EastChair: Kenneth K. ChoVice Chair: Hung H. Bui (not pictured)

The Committee serves as a resource, forum, and network for AIPLA members with a personal and/or professional interest in the IP laws and systems of Asian countries, with an emphasis on China, South Korea, and India. The Committee’s mission is to establish relations with IP associations in those countries, study and report on the IP laws and practices of those countries, and provide information on US IP law and practice to interested parties from those countries. The Committee convenes a combined business and educational meeting at each of the three stated AIPLA meetings, regularly sends delegations to and accepts delegations from Asian countries, and seeks to collaborate with other Committees.


IP Practice in JapanCo-Chair: Joseph A. CalvarusoCo-Chair: Paik Saber

2011-2012 Plans and Objectives Consistent with the AIPLA’s Vision, Mission, and Values, the Committee intends to maintain a high-level of visibility over the next year through its interactions with key Japanese IP organizations to promote the exchange of information on significant IP developments in the US and Japan. These exchanges have generally occurred at two, 1-1/2 day “pre-meetings” (prior to the Annual Meeting and Mid-Winter Institute) as well as a week-long delegation visit to Japan,


usually in April of each year. The 2011 April Trip had to be rescheduled to September of 2011 due to the tragic events which took place in Japan following the earthquakes and tsunami last March. As a result of the September trip to Japan, the Committee, in consultation with a number of Japanese IP organizations, decided to forego having a pre-meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting.

For 2011-2012 calendar year, the Committee is actively planning a 1-1/2 day pre-meeting at the 2012 Mid-Winter Institute, as well as a joint session with the IP Practice in Europe Committee. The Committee is also planning a trip to Japan in April. However, to accommodate the AIPLA leadership, the trip will be split over two consecutive weeks – April 11-13 and April 16-17. The Committee is also planning to have a regular session during the 2012 Spring Meeting, and a pre-meeting at the OctoberAnnual Meeting.

The Committee also looked into the feasibility of adding a second trip to Japan in September to attend the Japan Trademark Association’s (JTA) annual meeting as well as having an open session for the members of the Japan Patent Attorney Association (JPAA) in Osaka. However, based on input from the JTA leadership, the Committee decided to forego pursuing a second trip.

The Committee is also in discussion with JPAA to arrange a trip to Osaka during the April 2012 visit since many JPAA members in Osaka have been unable to travel to Tokyo to attend the Open session of the AIPLA-JPAA meeting. The Open session provides substantial CLE credits for JPAA members and has become a very popular session in recent years. During our September visit, JPAA told us they could increase the number of participants at the Open session if AIPLA could accommodate the following requests: i) providing its presentations to JPAA for printing several weeks prior to the Open session and including Japanese translations in each of the presentations; ii) minimizing the number of presentations on the case law; and iii) focusing its presentations on prosecution issues and practical prosecution tips. The Committee intends to accommodate all of JPAA’s requests.

The Committee currently has about 200 active voting members. It is the Committee’s intent to increase active participation of its members, and to encourage new members to join by:

• posting more information on its web page as well as taking advantage of the potential second trip to Japan;

• making short announcements at several other Committee sessions during the 2012 Annual Meeting to encourage attendance at the 2012 Mid-Winter Institute pre-meeting; and

• taking advantage of the April trip to Japan to promote AIPLA membership.

While historically the Committee has been focused on exchanging information with the Japanese IP organizations, we will now increase our focus on advocacy, consistent with the AIPLA objectives. To that end, during our September Trip, the delegation briefly raised the subject of submitting Amicus Briefs with the Japan IP High Court and intends to raise this matter again during next April’s visit. The delegates also had a very candid discussion with the JPO Director of International Affairs on the issue of what it takes to increase the number of patent filings in Japan. It was decided to further continue this dialogue throughout next year.

IP Practice in Latin AmericaChair: James E. LarsonVice Chair: Joaquim Eugenio Goulart

SUBCOMMITTEES:Subcommittee Reporting on IP Developments in South America for 2012Ignacio Manuel Sánchez Echagüe – ChairmanMarval, O’Farrell & MairalBuenos Aires, Argentina

Gisella Barreda – Vice ChairmanBaredda MollerLima, Perú

Subcommittee Reporting on IP Developments in Mexico & Central America for 2012César Ramos - ChairmanOlivares & CIA.Mexico City, México

José Paulo Brenes – Vice Chairman Pacheco CotoSan José, Costa Rica


Subcommittee for the Maintenance of the AIPLA LAC Micro-Web SiteEduardo da Gama Camara Junior – ChairmanDannemann Siemsen AdvogadosRio de Janeiro, Brazil

Subcommittee for Development and Integration of Social Networking in Latin AmericaLuis Diego Castro – ChairmanCastro & Pal AbogadosSan José, Costa Rica

Vision, Mission and Values The IP Practice in Latin America Committee’s mission is to foster a better understanding of the complex differences among the numerous countries of Latin America by educating its members and the AIPLA body as a whole. The Committee works to this end by constantly reminding its members through its Committee programs and web postings that there are three distinct languages spoken throughout Latin America (English, Spanish and Portuguese), not including the numerous indigenous languages that can be found in each country, and that each Latin American country is very unique in its culture, political system, history and of course their approach to the procurement of intellectual property. The Committee brings together those differences (within the best of its abilities) to help IP Practioners throughout the world understand Latin America and the procurement of IP in the region. The Committee’s vision is to include IP practitioners from every Latin American country as members of the Committee and as members of the AIPLA community as a whole. The Committee’s values are identical to those of the greater membership in its belief to the enduring power and importance of all areas of intellectual property for creating economic growth and prosperity for all of Latin America.

Advocacy The Committee is very committed to acting as an advocate for furthering the understanding and development of IP systems in Latin America. The Committee will work with fellow IP associations in all Latin American countries to assist them in embracing common ideals and systems that are proven to work in other countries with more developed IP procurement systems. However, the Committee will always remain cognizant of the unique cultural differences in each Latin American country and will never forget that just because a certain system works in one country, it does not mean that it will necessarily work in others. The Committee will look to fellow Committees such as the International and Foreign Law Committee, the PCT Issues Committee, the various Trademark Committees and the Committees covering Japan, Europe and the Far East, to name just a few, for assistance, mutual cooperation and guidance. As well, the Committee

is currently working on establishing a liaison with the Biotechnology Committee to foster greater awareness and cooperation between our two sister Committees because of the importance of the biotech industry in Latin America.

Public Education The Committee is committed to the highest level of public education as it relates to IP procurement in the Latin American region. As a means to this ends, the Committee will continue to work other AIPLA committees to sponsor joint Committee sessions, especially at each year’s Spring and Annual Meetings. However, the Committee will not restrict itself to only working with other “internationally-focused” Committees, but will strive to incorporate programs co-sponsored by a wide variety of AIPLA Committees, so long as the educational program is helpful to the Committee membership and the greater AIPLA community. Further, the Committee has formed a new Subcommittee called the Subcommittee for the Maintenance of the AIPLA LAC Micro Website to provide the latest information to Committee members and the AIPLA membership in regard to the latest IP issues arising in Latin America.

Member ServiceThe Committee is wholly committed to expanding its membership to include at least one, if not many, members from each Latin American country in the region. The Committee is also committed to asking its members to speak at any of the three annual meetings when their specific area of expertise fits within the programmed committee session. Further, the Committee has created a new Subcommittee to maintain its AIPLA microsite to provide its members with the most updated information in regards to important changes occurring in the IP world throughout the Latin American region. The Committee has also created a Subcommittee to investigate and disseminate information to the full Committee – in cooperation with the Microsite Subcommittee – about credible and informative social networks, group discussions and blogs that offer valuable information to members with interests in Latin America IP. Finally, the Committee is actively pursuing AIPLA delegation speaking opportunities with its sister Latin American associations such as the Brazilian IP Association or the ABPI and the Asociación Interamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual or ASIPI.

Global Outreach Each of the IP Practice in Latin America Committee’s vision, mission and values as well its advocacy, public education and member services, will work together to provide a greater global outreach. Latin America has become an important economic market for the world and should expect to see IP procurement increase steadily each year throughout the entire region. The Committee intends to help foster a


global outreach by planning an annual trip to a Latin America country to visit its local Patent and Trademark Office and/or other IP Office and as well to coordinate a visit with the county’s or city’s local IP association and its judicial bar. Although the dates for a 2012 trip to Brazil are not yet finalized, a Brazil planning committee is currently working out the details to finalize a trip to Rio de Janeiro in late August. Also, a potential trip to Antigua, Guatemala in March of 2012 is being considered in conjunction with ASIPI’s mid-year meeting to be held in such location.

Law Practice ManagementChair: Steven M. AuvilVice Chair: David A. Divine (not pictured)

Bi-annually, this Committee is responsible for publishing the AIPLA Economic Survey, which is a highly popular reference for annual incomes, attorney fees, and professional and demographic characteristics of IP attorneys and agents. This Committee also strives to educate on issues pertaining to managing a law practice. These issues may vary from partner-level management issues to associate-level management issues. Some recent programs addressed sexual harassment in the work place and becoming a partner.


Law StudentsCo-Chair: Natalie C. JonesCo-Chair: Deb Sengupta (not pictured)

See Education Committee report.

Licensing and Management of IP AssetsChair: Kevin A. Wolff Vice Chair: Robert O. Lindefjeld (not pictured)

MissionThe Licensing and Management of IP Assets Committee develops and shares information on procedures for enabling IP owners to extract additional value from that property. The Committee also analyzes the impediments to valuing IP assets as compared to tangible assets, develops procedures for overcoming these impediments and recommends features for tools to assist in mining intellectual property portfolios, managing those portfolios and managing the revenue streams obtained from those portfolios.

2011 Annual Meeting RecapFor the 2011 Annual Meeting, the Committee planned and provided three, one-hour joint Committee educational session CLE programs. One of the programs was co-sponsored with the Trademark Law Committee covering all three of the primary IP law areas: copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The first CLE session was directed to a panel presentations/discussion on the copyright law topic of “The Future of Collective Licensing in the US: Google Books and Beyond.” This session was moderated by the new Register of US Copyrights, Maria A. Pallante, and four panelists including Michele Woods, one of the acting Associate Registers and Marybeth Peters the former Register of Copyrights. The second CLE session was directed to a panel presentation/discussion on “Day of the Trolls: The Pros and Cons of Settling a Patent Case and Taking a License When the Product(s) Do Not Seem to Infringe,” and “Managing Patent and License Rights at the Charybdis of Insolvency: The Nortel Bankruptcy and a Stalking Horse, a Patent Auction and a $4.5 Billion Winning Bid.” The third CLE Session was directed to two panel topic presentations regarding three contemporary trademark law topics: “Licensing Trademarks – Do’s and Don’ts Under Today’s Case Law”, “Quality Control for Trademark Licensing”, and “Termination of Contract Provisions and Remedies.” All three sessions were well attended and the topics well received.

We recommend you view the PowerPoint presentations and


copies of the papers related to these presentations on the AIPLA website. We also recommend you review the position paper by the US Copyright Office related to collective licensing which can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/massdigitization/USCOMassDigitization_October2011.pdf

2011 RecapIn 2011, the Committee again focused primarily on providing CLE-requested meetings featuring speakers from around the world discussing licensing and management of IP asset issues with a global perspective. At the 2011 Mid-Winter Institute, the Committee held a planning and organization meeting including Committee leaders and those members who were able to attend the meeting. Unfortunately the Committee meeting was not well attended. The year’s plans were discussed, with a number of members supporting an approach to include renewing commitment to develop Committee-specific materials, reaching out to the Licensing Executive Society to see if a synergistic relationship was possible, and continued support, organization, and offering of licensing and management of IP asset topics at both the Spring and Annual meetings.

• During the leadership meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed and proposed the following: Committee objectives for the 2012 year:

• Committee, Subcommittee CLE and Events• Define and conduct at least 2 CLE events each year for

the membership (management of IP assets)• Survey Committee Members re: their interest in• What CLE they’d like to see• How to make Subcommittees more vibrant and effective• Increase Corporate IP Involvement• Synergy with the Women in IP Law Committee• Focusing on what Corporate IP Counsel are looking for• IP Practice in China• Improve Committee web page• Add videos• Add materials from CLE events• List Subcommittees• Have Subcommittee for managing the web page• Linked in and Facebook pages• Conduit/relationship development with LES

2011 Spring MeetingThe Committee helped prepare a joint meeting with the Antitrust Committee. Rob Lindefjeld and Kevin Wolff worked with the Antitrust Committee and Corporate Practice Committee to develop the program where the speakers will address the recent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in the Princo case; developments relating to reverse payment litigation and legislation; and developments relating to antitrust enforcers’ focus on intellectual property, including

with regard to the recently issued FTC IP Report and the EC’s Horizontal Collaborators Guidelines.

Detailed Plans and Goals for 20122012 Mid-Winter InstituteThe Committee will co-sponsor a presentation (non-CLE session) with the Mergers and Acquisition Committee on the topics of IP Assignment Issues in M&A and IP Issues in Cross-Border Transactions.

In addition, the Chair and Vice Chair will also spend time on the following topics:

Meet with Subcommittee chairs to plan goals and objectives. The existing and new Subcommittees will be reviewed and consideration will be given to the goals and plans for each Subcommittee.

Discuss how best to coordinate with LES and information obtained from meeting with LES in the fall.

The following Subcommittees will be formed or discussed at this meeting:

CLE Program Planning, Internet and Web Site Management, LES Liaison, International, and Licensing Best Practices.

2012 Spring Meeting The Committee is once again considering a joint CLE session with the Corporate Counsel Committee or holding its own session related to IP Portfolio Management. Rob Lindefjeld, Kevin Wolff and the new Subcommittee chair on CLE Program Planning will evaluate the proposed program with the Corporate Counsel Committee and make a decision on what to include in the program and whether this should be planned as a Committee-only program, with the Committee being a sponsor.

2012 Annual MeetingThe Committee will hold a 1-1/2 hour CLE-requested meeting on a topic or topics TBD.

Sub-CommitteesIP Costs: Domenic Leo, Robert Silverman

Coordinates future educational sessions on tracking, managing, and analyzing costs related to identifying, creating, maintaining, and leveraging IP.

Diversity: Bill “Skip” Fisher

Represents the Committee as liaison to the Diversity Committee (DC), to report on issues and developments of the DC, and to coordinate activities of the Committee in support the DC.

Young Lawyers: Sheena Connors

Represents the Committee as liaison to the Young Lawyers


Committee (YLC), to report on issues and developments of the YLC, and to coordinate activities of the Committee in support the YLC.

Trademark & Copyright: Gretchen Prochaska Testerman, Lesley Craig

Monitors and reports to the Committee on issues and developments affecting creation, maintenance, licensing, and enforcement of trademarks and copyrights.

Formalities: Marc Hubbard, Kevin O’Brien

Takes meeting minutes, collects necessary formal materials, and works with the Internet Subcommittee to post updated materials.

Internet: Salvatore Anastasi

Maintains the Committee’s micro site (http://www.aipla.org/MSTemplate.cfm?Site=Management_of_IP_Assets1).

International: Robert Bauer, Jackie Klosek

Monitors and reports on international issues and developments that significantly affect creation, maintenance, licensing, and enforcement of IP assets.

Corporate Practice: Richard Ludwin, Mike Noonan

Facilitates sharing of best practices and networking among in-house members of the Committee.

MembershipChair: Bryan W. BockhopVice Chair: Cheryl H. Agris (not pictured)

This Committee provides support to the efforts of many other Committees as well as the AIPLA Board to expand membership and increase active meaningful participation by AIPLA members. The Committee oversees the Target-Substantive Committee Liaison program and has started a Solo/Small Firm Practitioner Subcommittee which will offer programs and networking opportunities to these practitioners. In addition, the Committee provides ongoing support to the Women in IP Law Committee in the planning of the annual regional women’s dinner as well as to the Law Students Committee in planning law student receptions

around the country.


MentoringChair: Daphne C. LainsonVice Chair: Hetal Kushwaha (not pictured)

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe Mentoring Committee facilitates mentoring relationships within AIPLA to help members achieve their goals within AIPLA. Professional mentoring may also be an aspect of the mentoring relationship.

SUBCOMMITTEES: Pairings Subcommittee: Orin Paliwoda. Following each stated meeting, matches new mentors and mentees for a one-year period.

Pre-screening Subcommittee of the Pairings Subcommittee: Kevin Shipley. Contacts each mentor and mentee prior pairing to make each match the best match possible.

Evaluations Subcommittee: Lisa Jorgensen; Allison Strickland. Selects the Mentor of the Year.

Klitzman Award Selection Subcommittee: Rakesh Mehta. Selects the Klitzman Award winner.

Technology Subcommittee: Jack Abid. The aim of this Subcommittee is to use technology to connect our members.

AdvocacyThe Committee does not have a formal role with respect to advocacy. However, through pairings, our mentors introduce their mentees to substantive committees which have a role in advocacy.

Public EducationThe Committee contributes to public education by supporting committees like the Education Committee. At the Annual Meeting, we had a joint meeting with Education, Young Lawyers and Law Students Committees. One objective of the joint meeting was to assist the Young Lawyers and Law Students in reaching out to their respective communities.


Our pairings can also increase AIPLA members becoming more involved in public education, with interested mentees being introduced to AIPLA leadership tasked with this objective.

Member ServiceWe believe that the Mentoring Committee draws in new members interested in becoming more involved in AIPLA and who may want professional mentoring. We also contribute to member services with the Klitzman Award. One objective of the award is to assist junior corporate counsel in becoming more involved in AIPLA.

We are working to improve the mentoring experience and considering new ways to pair mentors and mentees, including a pre-pairing interview by our pre-screening subcommittee.

We are developing a pilot program for launch at the Spring Meeting to provide greater mentoring at each stated meeting. Our goal is to pair AIPLA leadership with more junior members who want to become more involved in AIPLA.

We are planning a joint meeting with the Membership Committee at the Spring or Annual Meetings in 2012 to further the goals of each of our Committees.

Global OutreachOur Committee has and will continue to improve ways for our members to become more involved outside of stated meetings. This allows members who are not able to travel to stated meetings to become involved in and learn more about AIPLA.

We are a global committee: foreign members are involved in the mentoring program at the leadership level and within the mentoring program as mentors and mentees.

We will be having an on-line program highlighting a mentor-mentee pair who will pass on their tips for getting the most out of the mentoring relationship, increasing our global outreach.

We are also developing new ways to reach out to our members using our Committee micro site, Twitter and Facebook. Goals are to provide additional resources for mentors and mentees outside of and at stated meetings. We are also considering ways to provide local mentoring opportunities, building on what the Young Lawyers and the Women in IP Law Committees have achieved through community events.

Mergers and AcquisitionsChair: Neil Henderson (not pictured)Vice Chair: Peter E. Mims

Vision Mission and Values To engage and educate the membership on intellectual property issues that arise in corporate transactions (mergers and acquisitions) and generally raise the awareness of the membership regarding the importance of intellectual property to mergers and acquisitions.

AdvocacyWe have not engaged in Advocacy as of yet, but there may be opportunities in the future. For example, there are conflicts in the rulings of several circuit courts of appeal regarding the assignment or transferability of intellectual property license agreements.

Public EducationThe Committee has a project to develop due diligence checklists that are initially for members but could eventually be made public.

Member ServiceWe have implemented monthly conference calls that are intended to be of benefit to member education. All members are invited to participate in these monthly calls. We are also considering webinars on topics that won’t fit into the regular conference calls. These webinars may be used as a subset of meeting discussion topics.

We have or will be conducting joint Committee meetings with presentations with other committees such as Electronics, Law Student, Emerging Technologies, Corporate, and Women in IP Law, to help inform a larger cross-section of AIPLA members about our Committee.

At the AIPLA Annual Meeting, we had an excellent joint committee session with the Women in IP Law Committee and the Corporate Committee. The presentation included: Moderator Carey Jordan, McDermott, Will & Emery, and Panelists Jacki Daspit, CR Bard, Inc.; Hemmie Chang, Foley Hoag; Charan Sandhu, Weil Gotshal; and Sue Hendrickson, Arnold Porter.

The session was very insightful with some great speakers on


M&A topics and we enjoyed some celebratory champagne after the panel to toast the new M&A Committee.

We are now well underway with Mid-Winter meeting planning. We are moving ahead quickly with plans for a joint session with the Licensing Committee, Emerging Technologies Committee and Student Committee.

We have provided as many opportunities as possible for committee members to be involved, through sub-committees, speaking, moderating, project managing, etc.

Global OutreachWe have had some attendance at Convention meetings by international members of AIPLA. One of the goals of the Committee will be to engage the IP Practice in Japan, China, Europe and other committees to conduct joint sessions with regard to mergers and acquisitions in other jurisdictions.

We are under way with planning for a larger session at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in 2012.

Online ProgramsChair: Brad ChinVice Chair: Stephen E. Belisle

Mission Our mission is to provide high quality, affordable education by means of online media.

Our vision is to develop and prepare technological options and vendors to work with the leadership and other Committees to identify, develop, and provide efficient and effective online program content and to facilitate others in AIPLA utilizing online media for program delivery.

The Committee provides substantial means to AIPLA to expand its role as an innovator, powerful advocate, and visible global leader in intellectual property, including through its interactive and timely Internet-based (and thus global) programming. The Committee also provides AIPLA with the capacity to serve its members, public policy leaders, and the public, while generating revenue necessary to ensure the sustainability of the organization and its employees.

AdvocacyThe Committee provides AIPLA with means to directly connect with its membership and the public. While the Committee itself does not engage in advocacy, its capacity to communicate information to and among target groups via online programming provides AIPLA with an invaluable tool in today’s instant information world.

For example, on September 30, the Committee facilitated a webinar interview with USPTO Director David Kappos by AIPLA Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson, which provided for a mutual exchange of information regarding the initial impact of patent law reform under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) among the USPTO, AIPLA, and attendees. Similarly, on October 27, (shortly after the AIPLA Annual Meeting), the Committee hosted a webinar entitled “USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act,” which featured the USPTO Patent Reform Coordinator, Janet Gongola, and provided a mechanism for information exchange between the USPTO and webinar attendees. The Committee will continue its series on the AIA into 2012 with a number of webinars to educate and enable practitioners to navigate their practices under the AIA.

Public EducationWhile the Committee has historically provided excellent IP programming for members of AIPLA and others, there is room to further leverage online programs to educate the general (non-member) public about the daily value of IP and to funnel that programming to specific target groups. Thus, the Committee is continuing to evaluate potential programming topics, audience groups, and cost-sensitive online delivery means in this regard, and coordinating with AIPLA regarding preferred practices for notifying such target groups of the online programming opportunities.

Member ServiceThe Committee provides substantial services to the members of AIPLA through two primary online platforms: Citrix GoToWebinars and webinars professionally hosted by KRM Information Services, Inc. In 2011, the Committee hosted 17 online programs covering a wide-range of topics, including the AIA, copyrights, patent interferences, patent reexaminations, patent prosecution, trademark prosecution, inequitable conduct, litigation, trade secrets, and others. These online programs not only serve the members of AIPLA, but generate revenue to help ensure the financial sustainability of AIPLA into the future. The Committee intends to host about 18 to 20 webinars in 2012, covering a wide range of subject matter to reach a broader scope of the membership. The planning for about 12 of them is already underway.

The Committee also provides a substantial channel for members of AIPLA to obtain needed CLE credits. For


example, in 2010, AIPLA processed about 3,800 requests for CLE in connection with online programming, and in 2011, AIPLA estimates to process about 3,500 such requests. The CLE requests, which have historically originated from at least 44 of the 50 US states, demonstrate the geographically diverse reach of the Committee’s efforts.

The Committee coordinates with several other AIPLA Committees to provide and continue to expand online programming subject matter and geographic reach. Most recently, the Committee coordinated with the Young Lawyers Committee to recruit new program coordinators and to provide the means to take geographically-targeted (localized) programming under development by young lawyers and offer that programming online.

The Committee also has the following Subcommittees whose collective mission is to cooperate with other Committees of AIPLA to expand and enhance member services:

The Citrix GoToWebinar Subcommittee is charged generally with facilitating such webinars, including a Career and Practice Management Webinar Series, and specifically with coordinating online programming with the Biotechnology, Chemical Practice, Corporate Practice, Electronic and Computer Law, International Education, Mentoring, and Patent Litigation Committees as well as the Special Committee on Standards and Open Source.

The Online Presence Subcommittee is charged with evaluating and improving the overall online presence and marketing of the programming of the Committee including through such channels as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Blogs, and the Committee’s microsite.

Global OutreachThe Committee provides AIPLA with global outreach through its online programming, which by its very nature is without boundaries (of course, time zones and language barriers affect the audience for any given webinar). The Committee continues to coordinate with the International Education Committee to identify and develop relevant online programming for international audiences, and to increase AIPLA’s international membership.

Patent AgentsChair: Esther M. KepplingerVice Chair: Naomi Abe Voegtli

At the AIPLA annual meeting, the USPTO Patent Relations Committee and the Patent Agents Committee held a joint meeting featuring USPTO Commissioner for Patents Robert Stoll as the guest speaker. Commissioner Stoll gave an informative presentation on the current status of numerous initiatives at the Office as well as an update on plans for implementing the recently passed American Invents Act (AIA). Commissioner Stoll’s slide presentation is available on the Patent Relations Committee microsite.

Commissioner Stoll explained that the backlog of unexamined applications is dropping and the Office has plans to hire as many as 2,000 examiners in fiscal year 2012. However, he also explained that the Office is currently operating under a continuing resolution and until the final 2012 appropriation amount is settled, hiring and other pendency reduction plans would not be finalized. He explained that new quality metrics are in place to measure the quality of various aspects of the patent examination process. Additionally, the numerous Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs (in which the USPTO cooperates with other IP Offices in sharing the examination results of corresponding applications) are showing impressive efficiency advantages and the popularity of the program is growing. He also explained that the new Track 1 prioritized examination program is in place and that the Office website gives data on the number of applications filed under the Track 1 program to inform the public of the progress toward the 10,000 application limit.

Finally, Mr. Stoll gave an update on the status of AIA implementation and the rule making process and answered numerous questions from the audience on a variety of topics related to USPTO operations.

Commissioner Stoll has recently announced his retirement from the USPTO. Our Committees would like to thank Commissioner Stoll for his willingness to support our Committee work by interacting with AIPLA members on a variety of issues and his outstanding service to the US patent system.


Patent Cooperation Treaty IssuesChair: Jay A. Erstling (not pictured)Vice Chair: Stephen G. Kunin (not pictured)

Together with the International and Foreign Law Committee and the IP Practice in Latin America Committee, the PCT Issues Committee presented a CLE educational session on Issues and Practice Tips for Patent Prosecution in the BRIC Countries. The speakers were: Claudio Szabas (Aspeby Szabas, Rio de Janeiro), who analyzed the situation in Brazil; Maria Eliseeva (Houston Eliseeva, Lexington, MA), who spoke on patenting in Russia; Calab Gabriel (K and S Partners, (New Delhi), who dealt with prosecution in India; and Chenyan Wu (China Pat, Beijing), who examined patenting in China. Jay Erstling, PCT Issues Committee Chair (William Mitchell College of Law, and Patterson Thuente, Minneapolis, MN), moderated the panel discussion. The presentations focused on patent law developments in the BRIC countries, on issues that the speakers typically encounter when prosecuting cases originating from the United States, and on practice tips to help improve prosecution. The session turnout was particularly large, and the questions posed about prosecution in the BRIC countries demonstrated a real interest on the part of U.S. practitioners to gain insight into these important emerging markets.

At the 2012 Mid-Winter Institute, the PCT Issues Committee will meet to discuss recent PCT developments and initiatives, as well to examine strategies and best practices for use of the Patent Prosecution Highway.

Patent LawChair: Kenneth N. NigonVice Chair: Marc A. Hubbard

MissionThe Patent Law Committee provides an open community for the exchange of ideas and concerns on US patent law and underlying policy, disseminates information on recent developments in patent law, develops educational programming on patent law for the membership and policy leaders, assists other Committees with developing educational and other programming, identifies to the membership and AIPLA important issues of patent law, and assists with developing positions on issues of patent law to be advocated by AIPLA. The Committee will do so without regard to any particular technology.

Committee Activities Related to AdvocacyOne of the Committee’s primary objectives is to assist AIPLA in its advocacy by monitoring issues that arise concerning the substantive aspects of US patent law and bringing those issues to the attention of the membership and AIPLA. The Committee gathers input from its members on issues involving patent law, and recommends positions to be taken by AIPLA. It also drafts resolutions and comments for AIPLA in response to requests from governmental agencies concerning patent law.

In September, the Committee assisted with drafting AIPLA’s comments on the USPTO’s proposed amendment to the Rule 56 materiality standard in response to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense. In October, the Committee solicited comments from its members concerning the USPTO’s Group 2 rulemaking under the America Invents Act (AIA), and supplied those comments to AIPLA’s AIA Task Force. The Committee anticipates continuing to be actively involved with soliciting and assisting the AIA Task Force with providing comments. The Committee also provided comments to the AIA taskforce on the AIA study concerning International Patents and Small Businesses.

Activities Related to Public EducationWe are a resource for the Public Education Committee for developing materials for use in public education. We will draw the Public Education Committee’s attention to any


issues that we believe it might be interested in addressing.

Activities Related to Member ServiceThe Committee serves members of the Committee and AIPLA through a number of different avenues.

First, our substantive Subcommittee provides forums or communities through which Committee members exchange information and thoughts on current legal developments and policy questions. Our Subject Matter Eligibility Subcommittee held several conference calls to discuss recent court decisions and USPTO activities concerning patentable subject matter eligibility. Now in its third year, the Subcommittee has over 40 members, and 10-20 people typically participate in each teleconference. The cases covered this year were Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft, Prometheus v. Mayo (the 2010 decision), Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO. (“Myriad”), CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Classen v. Biogen, and Ultramercial v. Hulu. As is the Subcommittee’s practice, one or more people presented a summary of the cases at hand and then all of the members joined in the discussion. The Subcommittee is fortunate to have a technically–diverse membership, enabling it to cover all technologies that arise, including software and the life sciences.

Because of the success of the Subject Matter Eligibility Subcommittee, we have expanded its scope to include all issues relating to patentability and renamed it the Patentability Issues Subcommittee. Ben Borson and Gary Cohen will co-chair it. It will monitor developments generally in the area of patentability, including subject matter eligibility, anticipation, obviousness, and §112 issues, for the purpose not only of holding regular conference calls to discuss important cases, but also bringing the Association’s attention to them and working with Committee leadership, the Amicus Committee and the Board on developing positions to be taken on important issues.

Second, the Committee regularly arranges and sponsors educational programming during its meetings, often for CLE credit. At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the Patent Law and the Patent Relations with the PTO Committees held a joint CLE meeting focused on rulemaking under the America Invents Act. Jonathan Spadt of RatnerPrestia gave a summary of the America Invents Act. Nick Godici of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch recounted the challenges faced by the PTO during rulemaking under the AIPA. Vince Garlock, AIPLA Deputy Executive Director, identified rulemaking challenges for the AIA. The meeting ended with Janet Gongola, the Patent Reform Coordinator at the USPTO, giving a very detailed outline of the PTO’s plans for implementing the AIA.

Going forward, our Programs Subcommittee, which will be chaired by Paul Kitch of Nixon & Peabody and Liz Brooks of Hunton & Williams, will be responsible for planning educational content, preferably for CLE credit, during the

Committee’s meetings. The Programs Subcommittee will also be responsible for coordinating with the Professional Programs and the Mid-Winter Institute Committees, as well as the Online Education Committee, by providing to those Committees ideas for programming, and assistance and resources in connection with producing the programming.

The Committee is planning another joint CLE educational meeting for the 2012 Mi-Winter Institute, this time with the Professionalism and Ethics, and Law Practice Management Committees. This meeting will focus on ethical issues arising from the AIA and a risk management topic.

Third, the Committee assists other Committees with programming content.

Fourth, the Committee informs its members of important legislative and administrative initiatives, and provides a mechanism through which members may contribute collectively to comments that will be submitted in response to those initiatives.

Global OutreachOur Programs Subcommittee will work with the International Education Committee by making available resources and speakers on US patent law, as well as suggest possible topics and program that might be of interest to an international audience.

Patent LitigationChair: Dianne B. ElderkinVice Chair: Scott J. Pivnick

A Subcommittee headed by Scott Pivnick has been hard at work updating the AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, last updated in 2008. At the Committee’s meeting at the Annual meeting, aspects of the draft instructions were presented in a mock jury instruction conference. The Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema, US District Court, E.D.Va. presided, and Patrick Coyne and David DeBruin argued opposing instructions. Next up is for the draft instructions to be presented to the Board in early 2012.

No formal agenda is planned for the Committee’s meeting at the Mid-Winter Institute, but members are encouraged


to attend and discuss ideas for the Committee efforts and programs – or to reach out to the chair and Vice Chair with any such ideas.

Patent-Relations with the USPTOChair: Gregory D. AllenVice Chair: Nicholas P. Godici

SUBCOMMITTEES: Federal Register Notice Committee: Lead drafter designated on a per Notice basis; and Microsite: Michael D. Berger.

Vision, Mission and Values

This Committee monitors and provides membership comments on various patent-related activities of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that may be of interest or concern to the profession or the public. The Committee focuses on the USPTO Rules of Practices in Patent Cases and their effectiveness in furthering the objectives of the patent system; the extrastatutory and extrarule aspects of USPTO practice with respect to pending patent applications, as reflected in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure and in actual cases coming to the attention of the Committee; the effectiveness of that practice in furthering the objectives of the patent system; and the effectiveness of the facilities afforded by the USPTO to the public interested in patent matters, including publications.

Advocacy

The Committee seeks input from it members, and other interested Committees, on USPTO Federal Register Notices, for consideration and evaluation for possible AIPLA comment to the USPTO. The Committee will also be working with the Special Task Force on AIA Rulemaking and other Committees, as needed to assist the Task Force.

Public Education

The Committee typically invites a USPTO official to stated meeting Committee meetings to discuss the current status of patent operations and programs, and any new patent policies, practices, or procedures that have recently been adopted or proposed. The latter is usually a joint meeting

with at least one other interested Committee. In addition, the Committee often joins with other Committees at the stated meetings for their Committee meetings.

For example, at the Annual Meeting, we held a joint meeting with the Patent Agents Committee where our guest speaker USPTO Commissioner for Patents Robert Stoll gave an informative presentation on the current status of numerous initiatives at the Office, as well as an update on plans for implementing the recently passed American Invents Act (AIA). In addition, we held a separate joint meeting with the Patent Law Committee regarding (AIA) featuring Jonathan Spadt, RatnerPrestia, Berwyn, PA, Vincent E. Garlock, AIPLA, Arlington, VA, and Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator, USPTO, Alexandria, VA.

Further, for example, at the upcoming Mid-Winter Institute, we are planning to joint meeting with the Patents Agents Committee where a USPTO official has been invited to discuss the current status of patent operations and programs, and any new patent policies, practices, or procedures that have recently been adopted or proposed. We are also planning a separate joint meeting with the Electrical and Computer Law Committee to provide a discussion on the state of appeals at the USPTO.

Member Service

The Committee activity maintains the Committee microsite to provide information of particular use to the membership.

Professional ProgramsChair: Steven C. MalinVice Chair: Manny W. Schecter

The Professional Programs Committee continues to conduct business developing upcoming AIPLA stated meetings. We met in-person on October 20, 2011 and subsequently by phone with a focus on the program for the 2012 AIPLA Spring Meeting in May. The agenda topics for said meeting have been assigned to session coordinators and we have begun the process of reviewing speaker selection and sending formal speaker invitations.


Professionalism and EthicsChair: Raymond Van DykeVice Chair: Rodney K. Caldwell

The Committee met at the AIPLA Annual Meeting. Incoming Chair, Raymond Van Dyke, and incoming Vice Chair, Rodney Caldwell, presided. Various items of business were discussed, including potential issues for the Committee generated by the 2011 America Invents Act, and prior ethics-related issues that were brought to the attention of the Committee. The Committee members stand ready to address any professionalism and ethics issues on behalf of the AIPLA Board, as per the mandate.

At the Annual meeting, Chair Raymond Van Dyke coordinated with the Patent Law Committee and Law Practice Management Committee regarding a joint Committee program at the Mid-Winter Institute. The Mid-Winter CLE Joint Committee session will address potential ethics issues arising from the America Invents Act of 2011. Vice Chair Rodney Caldwell is monitoring for additional issues for the Committee to investigate. Many thanks to Past Chair, Guy Donatiello, for his guidance and work in the Committee.

Public AppointmentsChair: Michael K. KirkVice Chair: William C. Rooklidge

This Committee is appointed by the President-Elect of AIPLA. It has responsibility for responding to requests from the AIPLA Executive Committee and Board to report to the Board on the qualification of certain individuals

being considered for appointment to positions such as a Federal Circuit judge, Undersecretary of the Department of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO or other similar public appointments.


Public EducationChair: Salvatore Anastasi (not pictured)Vice Chair: Michael B. Stewart

This Committee operates in cooperation with AIPLA, its representatives and others in the IP community to develop and promote a theme and simple consensus message to effectively communicate the value of intellectual property as a protectable resource for advancing creativity and innovation, and to distribute education materials on this topic to target audiences, in person and over the web. Subcommittees have been formed that focus on teaching audiences ranging from youth education to the internet to the judiciary and Congress.

No business to report at this time.


Special Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and FolkloreChair: Thomas T. MogaVice Chair: DeAnn F. Smith

Vision, Mission and Values Our committee has the unique mandate of raising awareness among members of the intellectual property community as to existing and developing rules of practice and policies related to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Most American practitioners are unfamiliar with these areas although they receive considerable attention in many countries, such as China, India and Brazil. To this end, the WIPO established the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. By enlightening intellectual property practitioners the Committee enables the members of AIPLA to better understand trends and developments at the very front end of global intellectual property issues.

Advocacy Our Committee advocates the development and distribution of knowledge related to the treatment around the world of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and folklore.

Public Education Public education is key to the success and function of the Committee which focuses its energy primarily on educating all members of the IP community as to the treatment of genetic resources, traditional knowledge in terms of intellectual property around the world. In the past, we joined with the Copyright Committee to present a program on folklore—perhaps the least understood area of our Committee’s work.

Member ServiceThe addition of this special committee to the array of other AIPLA committees has provided a great benefit to members through the advancement of knowledge related to our Committee’s work. The Committee provides a unique resource for this information and may, in fact, be the only information most practitioners receive on these areas.

Global OutreachAt the Annual Meeting, the Committee heard from Mr. Otto Licks of Brazil, Mr. Caleb Gabriel of India and Mr. Chonghuang Long of China as to the latest developments in genetic resource rules and practice in their respective countries. The Committee leadership participated in meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore of the WIPO.

Special Committee on IP Practice in IsraelCo-Chair: William H. MandirCo-Chair: Joel K. Schmidt (not pictured)

This Committee serves as a resource, forum, and network for AIPLA members with a personal and/or professional interest in IP laws and systems in Israel. The Committee’s mission is to establish and maintain relations with IP associations in Israel and study and report on issues of interest to the AIPLA Board and membership. The Committee also provides information on US intellectual property law to any interested party in Israel, if called upon to do so.

This new Committee will hold its first meeting in 2012.


Special Committee on LegislationCo-Chair: Ann Mueting (not pictured)Co-Chair: Patrick J. Coyne

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe overall mission of the Committee is to support the Board and facilitate rapid consideration of legislative proposals, including generation of proposals, as well as consideration of both internally- and externally-generated proposals. The Committee also works closely with the various substantive law Committees to ensure that the Board has feedback from them on legislative proposals.

The Committee supports the vision of the organization by continually seeking to improve the laws governing IP rights, by considering Committee members’ views as well as those of the substantive law Committees we work with, and by supporting the Board and leadership in working with Congress.

The Committee supports the Association’s mission by keeping members informed regarding legislative developments and initiatives and advocating for fair and effective IP laws. The Committee serves the Association by generating legislative proposals and providing commentary and views of the membership on various legislative proposals to the Board and Association leadership.

AdvocacyThe Committee supports the Board and leadership, as requested. This includes generating, reviewing, commenting on, and preparing legislative proposals, positions on legislative proposals, and testimony regarding legislative proposals. We work closely with the substantive law Committees and serve as liaison between the Board and those to ensure that proposals are carefully considered by persons with the relevant expertise and experience to provide the Board with sound recommendations and the studied judgment of the members.

Public EducationThe Committee works primarily through the Board, the leadership of the Association, and substantive law Committees.

Member ServiceThe Committee actively solicits the substantive law Committees in performing its mission. We seek to provide the Board with a sense of the membership on the various issues we consider.

Global OutreachAs the Committee is directed to US legislation, we consider and coordinate primarily regarding US legislation. Nonetheless, a number of legislative proposals require consideration of various international issues, as well as harmonization with other countries’ laws. The Committee addresses these issues in the regular course of its work.

Special Committee on National IP Practitioner Associations WorldwideChair: Mark A. GuetlichVice Chair: Mark J. Abate (not pictured)

This Special Committee is charged with creating and promotion opportunities for leaders of national IP practitioner organizations around the world to meet and develop recommendations for best practices globally. It focuses on education, common advocacy goals, and how attorneys around the world use technical information.



Special Committee on Standards and Open SourceCo-Chair: Monica M. BaroneCo-Chair: Christopher J. Dervishian (not pictured)

Our Committee will hold a meeting during the 2012 Mid-Winter Institute at which Michele Herman, Intellectual Ventures, will make a presentation on the basics of standards setting organizations (SSOs). It became apparent at the 2011 Annual Meeting that many Committee members are interested in learning more about SSOs. The Standards Primer presentation will focus on what patent practitioners need to know about IP rights (IPR) policies. Our Committee has presented this type of information in the past, but with the influx of new members into our Committee, we decided to make this presentation again.

Every month our Committee holds either a Committee conference call or, when there is an AIPLA general meeting, a face-to-face Committee meeting. The Committee co-chairs are working with AIPLA staff to produce an online survey for the Committee to explore the types of projects that Committee members are interested in pursuing.

In the recent past, our Committee has concentrated on standards-related projects. In the future, the Committee hopes to also initiate projects related to open source. In addition to the online survey, which will gather information on open source projects of interest to our members, our Committee held a conference call for all members interested in open source projects in December.

The Committee currently has several Subcommittees which enable the Committee to explore many different issues at once, while at the same time engaging greater numbers of Committee members. These Subcommittees include a Policy/Project Subcommittee, a Government Outreach Subcommittee, a Programming Subcommittee, and a Management Subcommittee. This structure provides the Committee an even greater efficiency in engaging the industry and policy makers on issues related to standards and open source as well as providing greater services to the Committee members.

An important activity of the Committee is to report on relevant lawsuits, enforcement actions, government policies, regulations, and legislation that may be of interest to AIPLA

members in the areas of standards and open source. Recent examples include: (1) the European Commission Competition Authority’s investigation of the European Payments Council; (2) the European Commission’s investigation into Apple’s allegations that Samsung violated SSO rules; (3) discussion of the Qimonda case, which is taking place in Germany and US Bankruptcy and District Courts; and (4) discussion of International Trade Commission (ITC) cases regarding evidence of domestic industry for patent licensing companies. In addition, our Committee has discussed the National Academy of Science, Technology and Economic Policy Program on Intellectual Property Management Study of Standards-setting Processes, which will study global issues related to standards. Several members of our Committee will take part in this National Academy of Science Committee.

Trade Secret LawChair: Daniel P. Westman (not pictured)Vice Chair: Janet Craycroft (not pictured)

Periodic Committee TeleconferencesThe Committee will hold a teleconference to report on its activities in 2011, and to discuss activities planned for 2012. The Committee anticipates scheduling regular teleconferences throughout 2012.

CLE Sessions at Stated MeetingsThe Committee intends to offer programs at each of the stated meetings in 2012.

At the 2012 Mid-Winter Institute, the Committee is planning a CLE session on “Separating Personal and Professional Digital Lives” in line with the meeting’s theme of “Life, Law and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

At the 2012 Spring Meeting, the Committee is planning a concurrent track focused on international trade secret litigation, and best practices to minimize litigation risks. In addition, a review of recent developments will be presented at the plenary session on Saturday morning.

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the Committee is planning a Trade Secrets Summit with programming for attorneys with all levels of experience, and addressing issues of interest


to inside and outside counsel. This would complement the existing programs in place for the Annual Meeting by offering the Summit on either the Wednesday before or the Saturday afternoon following the Annual Meeting. In addition, the annual review of trade secret litigation will be presented at the plenary session on Saturday morning.

Online ProgramsThe Committee is scheduled to present an AIPLA webinar with the AIPLA Online Programs Committee on June 6, 2012 and on a later date to be determined.

The Committee is also looking into presenting a webinar through the International Outreach Committee regarding the recent Federal Circuit opinion in TianRui v. ITC.

The Committee has also recently launched an AIPLA Trade Secret Committee Group on LinkedIn and is considering other proposals to expand its presence in social media and over the Internet.

Proposed LegislationThe Committee is tracking the Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act which has been proposed as a bill in Congress. The Act would amend the Economic Espionage Act to include a civil right of action. This proposed statute grew out of the law review article proposing such amendments, authored by former Trade Secrets Committee Chair R. Mark Halligan. The Trade Secrets Committee will vote on whether to propose a resolution to the AIPLA Board regarding this potential federal legislation.

Preparation of Resolutions for Board ConsiderationThe Committee is considering preparing a resolution for the AIPLA Board with respect to the recent Federal Circuit opinion in TianRui v. ITC.

Additional SubcommitteesThe Committee is considering forming subcommittees including Micro site/Social Media, Mentoring, or other subcommittees suggested by the membership.

Trademark InternetChair: Mark V.B. PartridgeVice Chair: Kristin Jordan Harkins (not pictured)

This Committee monitors, reports, and submits comments on significant developments in the area of trademarks and the Internet. The Committee represents AIPLA’s interests as a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN, attending regular teleconference meetings and participating in email discussions. It also represents AIPLA as on observer at meetings and online discussions of the Coalition for Online Accountability. The Committee also monitors and may become involved in internet-focused legislation that may impact trademark owners, as necessary. Another area of interest is UDRP cases and court cases involving trademarks and the internet, such as cases involving the use of others’ trademarks in keyword-triggered search engine advertising.


Trademark LawChair: Amie Peele CarterVice Chair: Kieran G. Doyle

The Trademark Law Committee continues in its role as both a substantive Committee responsible for monitoring the laws and treaties of the United States concerning trademarks, trade names and unfair competition, as well the administrative Committee that coordinates the efforts of the specialized AIPLA trademark Committees, focusing on international aspects of trademark law, trademarks on the Internet and in cyberspace, trademark litigation and trademark relations with the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Substantive programming at the Annual Meeting featuring


content relevant to the trademark practitioner included a panel on trademarks and branding through the recession and beyond as well as numerous Committee meetings and sessions focused on trademark related issues.

At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the Committee leadership met to focus on programs and initiatives underway for 2011-2012, including a focus on how the Trademark Committee can support the AIPLA Strategic Plan Update: Implementation and Governance.

Two specific initiatives requested by President Bill Barber include increased legislative tracking/involvement in trademark legislative issues and a greater programming focus on international trademark issues. In addition to those efforts, the Committee held a joint business meeting with other trademark-related Committees and recruited numerous volunteers to populate the following list of Subcommittees and liaison positions.

Liaisons were identified for the following Committees: IP practice in Japan, IP Practice in China, Special Committee on IP in Israel, IP Practice in the Far East, IP Practice in Latin America, IP Practice in Europe, International and Foreign Law, Rapid Response, Amicus, and Professional Programs.

Volunteers were recruited for these Subcommittees: Membership, Communications, Sports & Entertainment, TM Bootcamp 2012, On-line Programs, Social Media, Legislation, False Advertising, and Technology/Microsite.

Recruiting efforts are ongoing and volunteers are welcome.

The Committee’s underlying mission remains reinforcing AIPLA as a preeminent organization and resource for US trademark attorneys.

We continue our projects for 2011 -2012 and beyond, as follows:

Increasing membership in the Committee from existing and new AIPLA members. (Plan to leverage new Committee structure to accomplish.)

Improving external communication, as follows:

• publicizing and leveraging content at both the local events and future stated AIPLA meetings,

• specifically leveraging content just after a stated meeting,

• continued involvement at third party meetings and conferences where an AIPLA presence would be beneficial,

• leveraging technology to our advantage, possibly to include:

Listserv Facebook page Twitter account Blog

LinkedIn e-newsletters

Improved internal communication with:

• committee membership via the mircosite and periodic phone conferences (depending on level of interest),

• developing a “rapid response” team for legislative relations, and

• possibly a newsletter and other best practices used by the Women in IP Law Committee regarding internal and external communications.

Continued collaboration with other trademark Committees, International law Committees, the Copyright Committee, the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee, and the Young Lawyers and Education and Public Education Committees, with a goal of increasing the number of Committee sessions at stated meetings in which one of the trademark Committees pairs with a non-trademark Committee to host a session.

Updating the Committee’s microsite to provide administrative information about the Trademark Committees as well as substantive content, consistent with the organization’s plans for the AIPLA website.

Providing cutting-edge CLE programming by devoting resources to both the professional programs and on-line programs Committees (including another Trademark Bootcamp in June 2011).

Considering potential legislative issues and remaining actively involved in the Amicus Committee.

Another presentation by the Sports and Entertainment Subcommittee.

Continued work with the Mentoring Committee to facilitate greater Committee involvement by mentors and mentees.

Formation of False Advertising initiative within the Trademark Committee.

Clean up Committee roster.

Trademark Committee MeetingsThe joint Trademark Committee meeting was very well attended this year. Volunteers were collected for various projects. Reports from other trademark related Committees were given as well. The Committee congratulated its own trademark colleague, President Bill Barber, for his new role in the organization; President Barber also addressed the Committee.

Commissioner for Trademarks Debbie Cohn addressed the Committee with an update on the Trademark Office. Sharon Marsh also addressed the Committee with remarks on trademark process at the USPTO. Chief Judge Gerard Rogers delivered an update on TTAB practice. The


Trademark Committee is grateful to these PTO and TTAB leaders for their time and efforts to remain connected to the AIPLA Trademark Committee. Alan Datri of WIPO delivered an update on international practice. Nicholas Vigneron of OHIM also provided an update on International Cooperation.

Trademark LitigationChair: Jennifer L. KovalcikVice Chair: Christina Ryan (not pictured)

Vision, Mission and ValuesThe Trademark Litigation Committee is dedicated to education, outreach, member service, and advocacy. The Committee strives to provide helpful tools and reports to educate AIPLA members and the public regarding current trademark litigation legal standards and updates. In addition, the Committee participates in program planning for various AIPLA meetings throughout the year. The Committee continues to achieve member collaboration through member participation in committee projects. The Committee continues to seek out and act upon opportunities to provide well-considered and vetted analysis regarding policy and decision-making related to trademark litigation.

AdvocacyThe Committee has provided comments on the issue of abusive litigation tactics and continues to monitor the USPTO’s request for comments on this issue. In addition, the Committee recently collaborated with the Patent Litigation Committee and Committee on Special Legislation to prepare a recommendation opposing H.R. 966, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011, which proposes revisions to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 regarding sanctions. Among the changes, the bill would remove the 21-day cure period and obligate courts to enter sanctions upon any finding of a Rule 11 violation, including a mandatory award of attorney’s fees. An AIPLA working group comprised of members from the Trademark Litigation Committee, the Patent Litigation Committee and the Committee on Special Legislation prepared a report and recommendation for the AIPLA Board of Directors. The report and recommendation were submitted to committee members for vote and received 37 votes in

favor and 2 opposed. The report and recommendation were then submitted to the Board, and the recommendation was approved. Going forward, the committee will evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay and its effect on injunctive relief as well as trademark infringement remedies for proposed committee action and/or legislative proposals.

Public EducationThe Committee implemented an updated litigation tool which displays a map of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal, and provides an online summary by circuit of leading precedent governing core trademark legal issues. In addition, Committee members continue to provide Case Summary Reports in advance of each of the three AIPLA Stated Meetings. The Trademark Litigation Case Summary Report covering cases from May through October 2011 was published in conjunction with the AIPLA 2011 Annual Meeting. Website updates have been and will continue to be made to the Committee page to publish the committee projects for members and the public.

Member ServicesThe Committee continues to actively involve its members in committee projects such as the Legal Standards Map and Case Summary Reports. To this end, the Committee has appointed member-volunteers as project coordinators, web master, amicus representative, and editor to improve the quality and extent of the Committee’s ongoing projects. We are planning additional committee projects, including evaluation of the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay and its effect on injunctive relief as well as trademark infringement remedies for proposed committee action and/or legislative proposals. Further, we are looking at opportunities to work with other committees to build outreach and education initiatives and cross-market membership and volunteer opportunities. Finally, we are looking to build membership through community outreach, cross-marketing and the Committee’s website.


Trademark Treaties and International LawChair: Michael M. BallardVice Chair: Jonathan M. Madsen (not pictured)

This Committee is primarily responsible for monitoring, reporting on, and providing recommendations to the AIPLA Board concerning international trademark developments and treaty amendments. It also actively participates in proceedings of WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Madrid Protocol.


Trademark-Relations with the USPTOChair: Linda K. McLeodVice Chair: Yasmin Tavakoli

This Committee, which works closely with the Trademark Law Committee, focuses on various aspects of inter partes proceedings before the USPTO, specifically the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB). The Committee tracks TTAB decisions as well as changes to the rules of procedure and other aspects of TTAB administration. It also provides comments through the AIPLA Board to the PTO regarding TTAB rules and various decisions. For example, the Committee has been actively monitoring fraud decisions in the TTAB and has provided a set of resolutions, which the AIPLA Board adopted, defining the organization’s position on the issue. The Committee is also planning a semi-annual

update on TTAB cases, available to AIPLA members through the committee microsite. This Committee also is responsible for monitoring, reporting on, and providing recommendations to the AIPLA Board and the USPTO regarding new developments and proposed rule changes at the USPTO.


USPTO Inter Partes Patent ProceedingsChair: Herbert D. HartVice Chair: Salima A. Merani (not pictured)

The Committee held a CLE session at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, on Thursday, October 20, 2011.

We were honored to have as our speakers Chief Administrative Patent Judge James D. Smith, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge James T. Moore, and Administrative Patent Judges Romulo H. Delmendo and Kevin F. Turner. We had a very good turnout of about 100 attendees, including a number of additional Administrative Patent Judges.

The topic of our program was “Effective Advocacy at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Inter Partes Cases: The View from the Bench,” moderated by committee Chair Herb Hart.

Chief Judge Smith spoke on “Petitions Practice at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,” addressing the proper issues for raising by petition.

Judge Delmendo spoke on “Briefing Your Appeal of a Decision in Inter Partes Reexamination.”

Vice Chief Judge Moore spoke on “Substantive Motions in Patent Interferences.”

Judge Turner spoke on “Presenting Your Case at Oral Argument in an Inter Partes Case.”

Following the judges’ presentations was a very active Q & A session, covering such topics as the transition from inter partes reexamination to inter partes review, the transition from interference proceedings, and the upcoming rulemaking for the Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review, and Derivation proceedings to be conducted under the America Invents Act.

The Committee is looking forward to a busy year in 2012, particularly in view of the major impact on the Board (soon to


be known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) of Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review, and Derivation proceedings. Further, the Committee is proposing to conduct a further CLE session at the 2012 Annual Meeting.

Women in IP LawChair: Alyson G. BarkerVice Chair: Hathaway Russell

SUBCOMMITTEES: Electronics & Communication (Randi Karpinia); Retention & Advancement (Meg Boulware & Nancy Klembus); National Networking Dinners (Carine Doyle)

Committee MissionThe Women in IP Law Committee is dedicated to providing networking, leadership, and educational opportunities to all members of AIPLA pertaining to the advancement and retention of women in intellectual property law.

Committee AdvocacyThrough the Advancement & Retention Subcommittee, the Women in IP Law Committee worked with the Association to develop a membership survey to identify key issues facing women in the profession. The Committee recently submitted a proposal to the Board to develop a summary of the results to present to AIPLA members, as well as law firms and in-house legal departments. In addition, the Committee is working in conjunction with other Committees, including the Diversity Committee, the Young Lawyers Committee, and the Corporate Practice Committee to coordinate programs for the stated meetings as well as webinars to educate our members on the issues facing women in the profession and to provide our members (men and women) with the tools to advocate for change.

Committee OutreachIn addition to the programs outlined above, the Electronics & Communication Subcommittee puts out a quarterly newsletter and maintains an online dialogue on LinkedIn and Facebook to encourage member participation outside the stated meetings. Moreover, the National Networking Dinners Subcommittee provides an opportunity for our

members to attend a free networking event in their city and it also provides members with the opportunity to become Committee leaders by volunteering to host and organize an event at their law firm or corporation.

The Committee is also planning a day-long networking event before the 2012 Spring Meeting in Austin, Texas.

Young LawyersCo-Chair: Melissa A. Sikorski (not pictured)Co-Chair: Chad Pannell (not pictured)

The Young Lawyers Committee held a successful joint meeting with the Mentoring, Education, and Law Students Committees at the 2011 Annual Meeting. We had a great panel discussing the Committees’ objectives and programs, including old and new projects and ways AIPLA members and young attorneys could get more involved with AIPLA. The second part of the meeting included a terrific panel that discussed different elements of IP practice from litigation, transactional, prosecution, and even a judicial perspective, in order to help young attorneys and law students better understand the IP legal market. We would like to thank the panelists Josh Miller, Chad Pannell, Kim Choate, Leigh Ann Lindquist, Dinesh Melwani, and Kevin Tottis for their valuable insight. The joint meeting was followed by a reception with over 200 in attendance.

As part of our initiative to connect members with one another, the Committee has launched a quarterly YLC Newsletter “Business Casual” headed by Justin S. Cohen, as Editor-in-Chief. The goal of the newsletter is to connect members on a personal level, sharing stories about vacations, marriage, kids, local gatherings and the like. The first edition was published in September of 2011. Look for another issue early 2012.

This year the Committee expanded its networking efforts beyond just local markets by holding its first annual retreat on August 19-21 in Boston. Special thanks to our incoming co-chair, Missy Sikorski, and Frank Gerratana of the Boston YLC Networking Subcommittee, who organized the gathering.


The Committee is also focusing on new initiatives to get more young lawyers involved with AIPLA and provide them with opportunities unmatched by any professional IP association. The Committee has recently launched its YLC CLE Subcommittee, headed by Richard Matthews, to provide CLE for young lawyers, by young lawyers. Our vision is to integrate education with our networking events around the country, allowing young attorneys to present at their local gathering, while being connected via videoconference with young attorney gatherings in other cities. Details on our first national YLC CLE presentation will be announced soon.

If you have not signed up yet to our group email, we encourage you to sign up by sending an email to:

[email protected]

The Committee chairs continue to utilize this resource, along with our Facebook page and LinkedIn group, to seek volunteers for various AIPLA projects, post job openings, make announcements, and communicate about upcoming events.

If you are interested to learn about how you can get more involved in AIPLA and the Young Lawyers Committee, please send an e-mail to Chad Pannell [email protected] or Missy Sikorski [email protected].

®

Perkins Coie is a proud supporter of the

American Intellectual Property Law Association.

CONTACT: Jonathan M. James, Partner PHONE: 602.351.8440 • EMAIL: [email protected]

CONTACT: Michael O. Warnecke, Partner PHONE: 312.324.9549 • EMAIL: [email protected]

Perkins Coie llp ATTORNEY ADVERTISINGwww.perkinscoie.com

A N C H O R A G E · B E I J I N G · B E L L E V U E · B O I S E · C H I C A G O · D A L L A S · D E N V E R · L O S A N G E L E S · M A D I S O N · N E W Y O R K

P A L O A L T O · P H O E N I X · P O R T L A N D · S A N D I E G O · S A N F R A N C I S C O · S E A T T L E · S H A N G H A I · T A I P E I · W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .


More than 2500 lawyers throughout the world. One firm worldwide. www.jonesday.com

Jones Day was very pleased to sponsor the AIPLA Women in IP Law Breakfast because our innovative IP Practice is fundamental to our Firm. We have 260 IP lawyers in 27 locations in nine countries. More than 100 of these women and men have advanced degrees in technical fields, from biochemistry to virology. Such professional experience helps us ensure that your intellectual property rights are protected and resourcefully coordinated on a global scale.

Innovation: A Crucial Component of Our Global IP Practice.


New MembersREGULAR

Julie Brown AckermanChicago, IL

Gregory J. AdamsCleveland, OH

Steven E. AdkinsWashington, DC

Dawn R. AlbertNew York, NY

Louis J. AlexChicago, IL

Amy Allen HinsonGreenville, SC

Scott AllisonWhippany, NJ

Anthony AmaralSuffern, NY

Donald R. AndersenAtlanta, GA

Brenton R. BabcockIrvine, CA

Mark BaghdassarianNew York, NY

Michele Liu BaillieMarblehead, MA

John William BainIndianapolis, IN

Kent BaldaufPittsburgh, PA

Craig A. BaldwinAuburn Hills, MI

Eyal BarashWest Lafayette, IN

Michael BarrettChicago, IL

Timothy Joseph BarronChicago, IL

Audrey L. BartnickiAbbott Park, IL

Scott E. BaxendaleChicago, IL

Murray B. BaxterGeneva, FL

Collen BeardDecatur, GA

Russell BeckBoston, MA

William BeckmanPeoria, IL

Kimberly A. BergerDetroit, MI

Denise BerginOakland, CA

Robert BerlinerLos Angeles, CA

Lennie A. BershNew York, NY

Robert A. BertscheBoston, MA

Christian M. BestCincinnati, OH

Gregory S. BishopMenlo Park, CA

David H. BluestoneChicago, IL

Garry BogganLeague City, TX

Kevin J BolandPhiladelphia, PA

Michael S. BrayerMilwaukee, WI

Monte R. BrowderMiami, FL

Daniel J. BrownAtlanta, GA

Philip H. BurrusAtlanta, GA

Jason R. BushJackson, MS

Duncan G. ByersNorfolk, VA

Stephen ByersLos Angeles, CA

Andrew ByrnesRedwood City, CA

Mary M. CalkinsArbutus, MD

Randy CampbellIndianapolis, IN

Rachel L. CarnaggioDenver, CO

Kevin J. CarrollManchester, NH

Janda M. CarterPeoria, IL

Krista CarterRedwood City, CA

Kirk A. CesariAustin, TX

Alistair K. ChanBellevue, WA

Hemmie ChangBoston, MA

Richard ChangLogan, UT

Carl C. CharneskiWashington, DC

Aamna ChaudhryArlington, VA

Kimberley Chen NoblesIrvine, CA

Karolyne H. ChengDallas, TX

Padmaja ChintaHorsham, PA

Tanya CoateHouston, TX

Howard M. CohnCleveland, OH

Robert W. ConnorsChicago, IL

Lorri W. CooperCleveland, OH

Nicole S. CunninghamSan Diego, CA

John CurryWashington, DC

Joseph T. CyganRolling Meadows, IL

Daniel N. DaisakPrinceton, NJ

Jubin DanaMenlo Park, CA

Christopher G. DarrowLake Orion, MI

Mark C. DavisWashington, DC

Peter J. DavisBaltimore, MD

Valerie Mason DavisCarpentersville, IL

The following applications for membership are being published as of December 19 in accordance with Article II of the By-Laws. Any member objecting to an applicant becoming a member must do so in writing before February 29, 2012.


Brian Del BuonoWilton, CT

Michael J. DelaneyNanticoke, PA

Debra L. DennettAustin, TX

Cedric Axel D’HueLafayette, IN

David B. DickinsonHouston, TX

Juliet DirbaAustin, TX

John C. DonchPhiladelphia, PA

Dana Marie DouglasNew Orleans, LA

Daniel DrexlerAlexandria, VA

Lawrence DruckerNew York, NY

Matthew EdwardsDurham, NC

Yasser E. El-GamalLos Angeles, CA

Merle S. ElliottChicago, IL

Joan EllisWashington, DC

Nicole EndejannPittsburgh, PA

Rahul EngineerAustin, TX

Tamera L. FairWilmington, DE

Eileen FalveyNew York City, NY

Hsiao-Ling FanTaipei 106, Taiwan

Michael B. FarberCarlsbad, CA

Chris FayePalo Alto, CA

Michael A. FebboSan Diego, CA

Joseph FischerBoulder, CO

Thomas G. FistekCleveland, OH

Adam P. FormanLawrenceville, NJ

William S. FosterWashington, DC

Matthew A. FoxAllentown, PA

Michael FrenchAtlanta, GA

James FussellWashington, DC

John T. GaddPark City, UT

Richard A. GaffinGrand Rapids, MI

John F. GallagherMelville, NY

Ajay K. GambhirSan Jose, CA

Bharat C. GandhiMidland, MI

Michael GarrabrantsSan Francisco, CA

John D. GarretsonKansas City, MO

Dean E. GeibelEtters, PA

Jami GekasChicago, IL

Nicolas S. GikkasPalo Alto, CA

Lana A. GladsteinBoston, MA

John S. GoetzNew York, NY

Latonia H. GordonChicago, IL

John F. GriffithOakland, CA

John Blair HaarlowChicago, IL

Yoon S. HamAlexandria, VA

Lindette C. HassanBlue Bell, PA

Fred W. HathawayAlexandria, VA

Steven Wayne HaysPittsburgh, PA

Dana W. HayterSanta Clara, CA

Louis M. HeidelbergerWashington, DC

George A. HerbsterBeverly, MA

Aram D. HermizChicago, IL

Michael HessMinneapolis, MN

Toni Y. HickeyWashington, DC

Gordon K. HillSalt Lake City, UT

Jonathan M. HinesCharlotte, NC

Sara K. Mooney HinkleyHouston, TX

Craig HoerstenPlano, TX

Howard S. HoganWashington, DC

Russell HollowayFort Worth, TX

Patrick HolmesCarrollton, TX

Kenley K. HooverWashington, DC

Karen G. HorowitzMorris Plains, NJ

Jason Andre HoudekIndianapolis, IN

Cindy HuangAlexandria, VA

Mark HullPeoria, IL

Jason M. HuntMadison, WI

James M. HunterWhitehouse Station, NJ

Seong Don HwangSeoul, South Korea

Ali M. ImamFalls Church, VA

Robert IrvineKing of Prussia, PA

Kunihiko Phillip IshikawaNorth Potomac, MD

Jeff JacobsSan Diego, CA

Leslie L. JacobsWashington, DC

Jimmie JohnsonWayne, PA

Peter K. JohnsonLogan, UT

Robert M. JoynesAlexandria, VA

John KacvinskyCary, NC

Stephen KampmeierNew York, NY

Satheesh K. KarraSan Diego, CA


Jeff KichavenLos Angeles, CA

Daniel KimSeoul, South Korea

Donghyun KimSeoul, South Korea

Margaret A, KivinskiIrvine, CA

Karl KlassenSeattle, WA

David KleinfeldSan Diego, CA

John L. KnobleRose Valley, PA

Andrew G. KolomayetsChicago, IL

Brian KooWashington, DC

Richard A. KoskeSeattle, WA

David Michael KressSparta, TN

Justin L. KriegerGreat Falls, VA

Charles S. KwalwasserNew York, NY

Marc R. LabgoldReston, VA

Scott L. LampertWest Palm Beach, FL

Inge LarishSan Diego, CA

Paul Alan LarsonWashington, DC

S. Alex LasherWashington, DC

Teresa A. LavenueWashington, DC

Frank W. LeakWinston Salem, NC

Celia H. LeberBend, OR

Thomas LeghornNew York, NY

Gregory J. LeightonChicago, IL

Shawn K. LeppoHarrisburg, PA

Jack Q. LeverWashington, DC

Joe LiebeschuetzMenlo Park, CA

Jessica LipsonNew York, NY

Debbie LivelyDallas, TX

Douglas E. LumishRedwood Shores, CA

Paul C. MaierNew York, NY

Robert L. MaierNew York, NY

Miriam MajofisSan Mateo, CA

Neil F. MaloneyManchester, NH

Neal MarcusChicago, IL

Gottlieb John MarmetMilwaukee, WI

Michael G. MartinDenver, CO

Jennifer F. MathewsMooresville, NC

Hugh H. MatsubayashiSeattle, WA

Ian T. MatyjewiczClifton, NJ

Pamela J. McColloughHouston, TX

Kevin McDermottReston, VA

John H. McDowellDallas, TX

Kerry Brendan McTigueWashington, DC

David Everett MeeksMiddletown, NY

Trent MenningHouston, TX

Jennifer MeredithEast Aurora, NY

Stewart N. MesherAustin, TX

Christopher J. MierzejewskiAustin, TX

Charles E. MillerNew York, NY

Michael A. MillerPittsburgh, PA

Samantha Soo-Jung MinSeoul, South Korea

David G. MirandaWaltham, MA

Sunjay Y. MohanPalo Alto, CA

Ronda P. MooreBoston, MA

Steven A. MooreSan Diego, CA

Raymond R. MoserShrewsbury, NJ

Daniel C. MulvenyWilmington, DE

John E. MungerRacine, WI

Carl MyersPeoria, IL

Rona NardoneFrazer, PA

David L. OdomDallas, TX

Christopher J. PalestroBerkley Heights, NJ

Warrington ParkerSan Franciso, CA

Christopher PaulrajWashington, DC

Robert E. PaulsonNew York, NY

Rafael A. Perez-PineiroMiami, FL

David M. PerryPhiladelphia, PA

Cameron B. PillingSeattle, WA

Robert S. PippengerBaton Rouge, LA

Paul E. PoirotWashington, DC

John C. PokotyloTinton Falls, NJ

Thomas C. PontaniNew York, NY

James F. PorcelloToledo, OH

Micheal J. PorcoBayville, NY

Jeffrey B. PowersRochester, NY

John L. PurcellKing of Prussia, PA

Christopher W. QuinnNovi, MI

Nathaniel QuirkCharlotte, NC

Ann E. RabeMilwaukee, WI

Lauren T. RabinovicHorsham, PA


Matthew George ReevesHouston, TX

John ResekBoston, MA

Joanne RichardsNicholasville, KY

David B. RitchiePalo Alto, CA

Jessie RobertsGreat Falls, VA

Melvin A. RobinsonChicago, IL

Robert J. RobyIrvine, CA

Amy RocklinBoyds, MD

David RoePlano, TX

Jerald W. RogersWichita, KS

Richard A. RomanchikRochester, NY

Joseph J. RuchWashington, DC

Harish RuchandaniWashington, DC

Jonathan RushmanAda, MI

Pradip SahuMatteson, IL

Fernando Brad SalcedoDurham, NC

Daniel J. SantosAtlanta, GA

Jeromye V. SartainNewport Beach, CA

Stephen T. ScherrerCrystal Lake, IL

Joel Karni SchmidtNew York, NY

William C. SchrotRockville, MD

David L. SchulerFramingham, MA

Daniel J. SchwartzChicago, IL

Kay L. SchwartzDallas, TX

Robert L. ScottOttowa, ON

Gary SerbinNew York, NY

Kalpesh K. ShahChicago, IL

Paula G. ShakeltonCleveland, OH

Timothy R. ShannonPortland, ME

Michael S. SherrillWhite Bear Lake, MN

Michael J. ShusterSan Francisco, CA

Doyle A SieverDamascus, MD

John Vincent SilverioNew York, NY

Dennis C. SkarvanPeoria, IL

James SkippenOttawa, ON

Stacey C. SlaterPortland, OR

Jason SmalleyReno, NV

Gregory M. SmithChicago, IL

Michael H. SmithOklahoma City, OK

Gary J. SpeierMinneapolis, MN

Lee SpencerCarlsbad, CA

Andrew W. SpicerDoylestown, PA

Steven R. SponsellerSpokane, WA

Adam Roger SteinertMinneapolis, MN

Walter S. StevensVista, CA

Carli E. StewartLafayette, IN

Marty StonemanPhoenix, AZ

Joni D. StutmanBlue Bell, PA

Stacie SundquistLos Angeles, CA

Lisa SwiszczBoston, MA

Michael F. TaveiraLos Angeles, CA

Samir TermaniniCedar Grove, NJ

Richard W. ThillSan Diego, CA

James D. ThomasRockville, MD

Gregory ThorneBay Shore, NY

Steve C. ThorntonJackson, MS

Thomas J. TigheSan Diego, CA

Marianne R. Timm-SchreiberDenver, CO

John A. TomichMiddlefield, CT

Michael TompkinsGrand Lake, CO

Louis W. TomprosBoston, MA

Michael TurnerSouthfield, MI

Mike TylerAustin, TX

Christopher VerniCambridge, MA

Michelle VirziNew York, NY

Eric VoelkFoster City, CA

Shannon VotavaLiberty Lake, WA

Aryn D. WadadliNew Haven, CT

Sarah WagerMountain View, CA

Shelby J. WalkerCambridge, MA

Craig Michael WallerSewickley, PA

Thad WattIrving, TX

Eric WengerWashington, DC

Brian WhippsMinneapolis, MN

Mark P. WhiteLexington, MA

Philip WieseAkron, OH

Gregory D. WilliamsBoston, MA

Jeffery T. WilliamsSalt Lake City, UT

John Thomas WinemillerKnoxville, TN

Perry WooEast Setauket, NY


Julie A. ZavoralPewaukee, WI

Jacob ZimmermanSaint Paul, MN

ACADEMIC

Mark GaynorSaint Louis, MO

Sam S. HanDayton, OH

Yaniv HeledAtlanta, GA

Julie HopkinsBaltimore, MD

Shontavia JohnsonWest Des Moines, IA

Layne KeeleMontgomery, AL

Charles RainwaterBethesda, MD

David O. TaylorDallas, TX

Theodore TheofrastousChardon, OH

FOREIGN

Colm AhernMadrid, Spain

Craig ArmstrongWaterloo, ON, Canada

Eric AugardeToulouse, France

Vipul N. BhutaMumbai, Maharashtra, India

Sylvan BrowneMelbourne, Victoria, Australia

Margarita CastellanosBogota D. C., Columbia

Dan ChenBeijing, China

James W. CherryMelbourne, Victoria, Australia

Stefan DannerMunich, Germany

Isabel Milner DaviesLondon, UK

Felix DietrichMunich, Germany

Huw EvansLondon, UK Kuo-Han FanTaipei, Taiwan

Naoum T. FarahBeirut, Lebanon Jürgen Werner FeldmeierMunich, Germany

Francesco FiusselloTorino, Italy Paul FootSheffield, UK Janique ForgetSaint-Laurent, QC, Canada

Jean-Charles GregoireOttawa, ON, Canada

Hervé J GrünigAix-en-Provence Cedex3, France Andy HardingLondon, UK

Tim HargreavesEdinburgh, UK

Michelle HedgesMelbourne, Victoria, Australia

Nick HolmesMelbourne, Victoria, Australia Sung-Jin HONGSeoul, Rep. of Korea

Edward John Langhorn HughesMelbourne, Victoria, Australia

Tadahiko ItohShibuya-Ku, Tokyo, Japan

Inkee JungVienna, VA

Dieter KamlahMunich, Germany

Patricio KingMexico, D.F.

Oliver William KingsburySevenoaks, UK

James KnowlesBristol, UK

Badrinarayanan LakshmikumaranNew Delhi, India Thomas LeglerGeneva, Switzerland Pascal LepageQuebec City, QC, Canada

Lei LiuToronto, ON, Canada

Alejandro LoredoNopoles, Mexico

Xianying Cecilia LouShanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China Michelle MaHaidian District, Peoples’ Republic of China

Kazumasa MatsuuraTokyo, Japan

Tony MizziPerth WA, Australia David MorelandGlasgow, UK

Masashi MoriwakiKyoto, Japan Pascal MoutardGrenoble Cedex, France

Geoffrey D. MowattToronto, ON, Canada

Marcello do NascimentoSão Paulo, Brazil

Christian Nguyen-Van-YenArcueil Cedex, France

Carlos Vicente S NogueiraSão Paulo, Brazil

Philippe OcvirkStrassen, Luxembourg

James J. PanToronto, ON, Canada

Helen PapaconstantinouAthens, Greece

Ghyo-Sun ParkSeoul, Rep. of Korea

Dinesh ParmarAhmedabad, India Ramaswamy ParthasarathyNew Delhi, India

Arpad PethoBudapest, Hungary

Flip PetillionBrussels, Belgium

Daria PettusSt. Petersburg, Russian Federation Bradley PostmaBrisbane, Queensland, Australia

Devendra PradhanKathmandu, Nepal Ajit Bhaskar RaulMumbai, Maharashtra, India

Dan RaymondOttawa, ON, Canada

Teresa RegulyToronto, ON, Canada

Marta va Reis e SilvaPorto Alegre, BrazilHector RobinsonGrand Cayman, Cayman Islands

Alex S. RossHamilton, ON, Canada

Satyapon SachdechaBangkok, Thailand


Octavio Saldana-VillanuevaMexico City, Mexico

Anuradha SalhotraGurgoan, India

Goncalo SampaioLisbon, Portugal

Christopher L. SamudaKingston, Jamaica Shoichi SatakeWashington, DC

Christian SchafleinMunich, Germany

Rajashree SharmaNew Delhi, India

Ryan P. SheahanOttawa, ON, Canada

Jinghong ShiGuangzhou, Peoples’ Republic of China Tatiana SilveiraRio De Janeiro, Brazil

Stephen C. SnyderAlberta, Canada

Alexander SobolevMoscow, Russian Federation Min SonSeoul, Rep. of Korea Marcelo Oliveir De SouzaRio De Janeiro, Brazil

Rainer SterthausFreising, Germany

Ladi TaiwoLagos, Nigeria

Ray TettmanHawthorn, Victoria, AustraliaChristos A. TheodoulouLarnaca, Cyprus

Benjamin ThompsonKuala Lumpur, Malaysia Christopher ThornhamLondon, UK

Tom TrinhVancouver, BC, Canada

Gerard van WalstijnCopenhagen, Denmark

Andrea VazquezDistrito Federal, Mexico Rodrigo Velasco AlessandriSantiago, Chile Rogelio A. VinluanGlobal City Taguig, Phillipines

Aurel VollnhalsMunich, Germany

Philipe WalterDuesseldorf, Germany

Yanchun WangVienna, VA

Udo WeigeltMunich, Germany

Elisabeth Wellman-DesbiensMontreal, QC, Canada

Allyson Whyte NowakToronto, ON, Canada

Paul WilliamsLondon, UK Dajian WuBeijing, Peoples’ Republic of China

Tianyi XuBeijing, Peoples’ Republic of China

Xun XuShanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China

Tuba YamacMontreal, QC, Canada

Maki YamaguchiAlexandria, VA

Yukuzo YamasakiTokyo, Japan

Yuzhou YangShanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China

Federico Zanardi LandiTorino, Italy

Arnd ZiebellDuesseldorf, Germany

GOVERNMENT

Anthony ArpinAlexandria, VA

James P. CalveAlexandria, VA

Rhina CardenalAlexandria, VA

Ross J. ChristieAlexandria, VA

Mary Anne CopelandLouisville, KY

Robert CourtneyWashington, DC

Jason DanielsAlexandria, VA

Joseph O. DuganFort Worth, TX

David EaswaranAlexandria, VA

Gregory L. EdlefsenWalkersville, MD

David FerranceAlbuquerque, NM

Michael P. GonzalezArlington, VA

Kelly HegartyAlexandria, VA

Jesus Javier HernandezOxon Hill, MD

Alan KalbBeachwood, NJ

John KirkpatrickArlington, VA

Dino KujundzicAlexandria, VA

Adam LevineWashington, DC

Brent R. LindonAlexandria, VA

Kyle O. LoganCrownsville, MD

Kevin P MahneAlexandria, VA

Suzanne MunckWashington, DC

Robert M. PatinoSpringfield, IL

Andrew PolayAlexandria, VA

Charles RainwaterBethesda, MD

Danielle Ducre RawlsMinneapolis, MN

R. Brian RogersState University, AR

Fredric L. SinderDayton, OH

Robert L. StollWashington, DC

David TepperAlexandria, VA

Eamonn P. TrainorLatham, NY

William J. WashingtonNorth Potomac, MD

Michael ZelenkaAberdeen, MD

Paul ZigasGreenville, NC

JUNIOR

Stephen D. AdamsKnoxville, TN

Nike Victoria AgmanHartford, CT


Iftikar AhmedHouston, TX

David H. AleskowAlexandria, VA

Eric B. AnderslandMinneapolis, MN

Bjorn AndersonAtlanta, GA

Django H. AndrewsBoulder, CO

Sadiq A. AnsariFairfax, VA

Patrick M. ArenzMinneapolis, MN

Steven ArgentieriMedford, MA

Kenneth P. AvilaLoma Linda, CA

Haris Z. BajwaWashington, DC

Anthony BalkissoonChicago, IL

Sam J. BarkleyBoulder, CO

Christopher Dennis BayneAlexandria, VA

Ryann H. BeckMilwaukee, WI

Steven P. BehnkenLisle, IL

Sasan Kevin BehnoodAnaheim, CA

Charles BelleSan Francisco, CA

Natalie BennettChicago, IL

James BenninFairfax, VA

Salvador M. BezosWashington, DC

Kristin BiedingerPittsburgh, PA

Ava H. BillimoriaTroy, MI

Seth Erik BoeshoreWashington, DC

James D. BorchardtNorth Liberty, IA

Paul BorchardtSan Francisco, CA

Charles BoveLos Angeles, CA

Treyson J. BrooksDallas, TX

Alyn BrownIndianapolis, IN

Lawrence BrownNew York, NY

Christopher BruenjesWashington, DC

Kevin BullEglin, IL

Steven A. CaloiaroReno, NV

Erik J. CarlsonLos Angeles, CA

Sarah E. CarmodySeattle, WA

Corey M. CaseyKansas City, MO

Francisco CastroChicago, IL

Danielle C. CendrowskiChicago, IL

Meenakshy ChakravortyCambridge, MA

Cyril ChanWashington, DC

Stanley M. ChangPalo Alto, CA

Anna C. ChauPearl River, NY

Jefferson CheathamWilmington, DE

Rebecca ChenPalo Alto, CA

Chai-Chyi ChengBeaverton, OR

Polin ChieuHouston, TX

Alfred ChuAkron, OH

Daniel W. ClarkeBoston, MA

Randolph V. ClowerFitchburg, WI

Stephen P. ColeBoston, MA

Nicholas P. ColemanLexington, KY

Nick ColicWashington, DC

Elliot CookReston, VA

Kirk CoombsSalt Lake City, UT

Califf T. CooperHouston, TX

Judith A. CothornCincinnati, OH

Christopher CowlesWatertown, MA

Andrew W. CusterSan Diego, CA

Alexis DanzigerBrooklyn, NY

Manav DasLouisville, KY

Nicolo DavidsonNashville, TN

George DavisRichmond, VA

Ryan DeanIrvine, CA

Anuj DesaiAtlanta, GA

Peter deVoreAlexandria, VA

Marcus N. DiBuduoFresno, CA

William P. DickinsonRichmond, VA

Xiaohong DingPortland, OR

Neal S. DongreArlington, VA

Eric R. DrennanDenver, CO

Shawn E. DuckworthChicago, IL

Grant M. EhrlichHartford, CT

Ryan ElliottSunnyvale, CA

Leon EriksonReno, NV

William EvansCarlsbad, CA

Derek Roger FaheyCoral Springs, FL

Alvin Yandie Fashu-KanuLos Angeles, CA

Paul C. FilonAkron, OH

Christopher M. FirstWashington, DC

Patricia Michelle FitzsimmonsDurham, NC

Sean FloodBristow, VA


Stacy FredrichAtlanta, GA

Raymond M. GabrielWashignton, DC

W. Scott GainesCincinnati, OH

Anastasios G. GarbisOrland Park, IL

Jack GauIndependence, OH

Anand GeorgeNew York, NY

Michael T. GhobrialPhiladelphia, PA

Andrew R GilfoilSaint Louis, MO

Chad GottliebMiami, FL

Krishna C.F. GrandhiCleveland, OH

Robert Alan GurrSt. George, UT

Brett A. HamiltonWashington, DC

Kevin C. HamiltonSan Diego, CA

Patrick P. HansenWashington, DC

Elese E. HansonChicago, IL

Charmaine K. HarrisPine Springs, MN

Theodore Michael HasseSan Francisco, CA

Julie HawkCleveland, OH

Karl A. HefterSeattle, WA

Joshua C. HeitsmanMoline, IL

Colin HeitzmannWashington, DC

Michael HendersonPhiladelphia, PA

Mitchell HerbertBoston, MA

Erica M. HinesAlbany, NY

Jared M. HogganDallas, TX

Lynn Marie HollyEdina, MN

Andrew M. HolmesSan Francisco, CA

Tyson K. HottingerIrvine, CA

Goeffrey HuNew York, NY

Eric J. HuangBoston, MA

Isaac A. HubnerCambridge, MA

Andrew HuffordThe Woodlands, TX

Eric A. HultmanGrand Rapids, MI

Andrea HutchisonChicago, IL

Michael IndrajanaSan Francisco, CA

Cory IngleCincinnati, OH

Tomoko IshiharaCleveland, OH

Rachel JacquesPark City, UT

Bobak P. JalaieIndianapolis, IN

Peter M. JayWashington, DC

Karolina JesienNew York, NY

Zheng JinSan Jose, CA

David P. JohnsonSalt Lake City, UT

Paul JohnsonPhoenix, AZ

Brendan Jeffrey JonesDurham, NC

Lucinda A. JonesRedmond, WA

Scott Edward JonesAlexandria, VA

Emily M. JudgeCincinnati, OH

Mike JungmanNew York, NY

Rivka JungreisNew York, NY

Sheila KaduraAustin, TX

Aruto KagamiNew York, NY

Marc KaplanChicago, IL

Dhruv KaushalBoston, MA

Jeffrey KelseyIndianapolis, IN

Lestin KentonWashington, DC

Julia Ann KimRaleigh, NC

June Young KimMinneapolis, MN

Darrell D. KinderSan Jose, CA

Adam KlinePhiladelphia, PA

Michael P. KochkaNew York, NY

Joseph J. KoipallyBoston, MA

Stephen KopchikWashington, DC

Esha KrishnaswamySouthfield, MI

Michael KucherDallas, TX

Kathleen KuznickiBaden, PA

Michael KyleGoodrich, MI

Derek S. LamBoston, MA

Clifford R. LamarNew York, NY

Hannah Y. LeeRedwood Shores, CA

Case A. LewisVentura, CA

Wenjie LiHopewell Junction, NY

Anna LinneSomers, NY

Paul LiuIrvine, CA

Geoffrey LottenbergFort Lauderdale, FL

Patrick D. LowderWashington, DC

Jamie LynnWashington, DC

Michael N. MacCallumSouthfield, MI

Dario A. MachleidtSeattle, WA

Roy J. MaharajSan Jose, CA


Leslie Viviana MarencoCoral Gables, FL

Kara K. MartinSalt Lake City, UT

Thomas C. MartinWashington, DC

Timothy J. MartinTroy, MI

Eric J. MartineauShrewsbury, NJ

Yuhgo MarutaMinneapolis, MN

Mark Jason MastersonCleveland, OH

Julia MathisCambridge, MA

Stephen G. McClureCleveland, OH

Christina McDonoughBoston, MA

Andrew M. MetrailerPlano, TX

Danielle Marie MihalkaninRedwood City, CA

Seth A MilmanBoston, MA

Maxwell MinchGainesville, FL

Michael R. MischnickMinneapolis, MN

Kahlil MitchellHartford, CT

Philip A. MorinSan Diego, CA

Hanna Bondarik MosolygoSummit, NJ

Yasser M. MourtadaWashington, DC

Carla Mouta-BellumWashington, DC

John E. MunroChicago, IL

Samhitha Chandes MuralidharWashington, DC

Nadine MustafaTroy, MI

Harriet Myrick-JonesTampa, FL

Deepa NamaWashington, DC

Bonnie Nannenga-CombsWashington, DC

Gerlinde NattlerAnn Arbor, MI

Craig E. NeiheiselCincinnati, OH

Jason S. NguiWoodbridge, NJ

Zhi-Xiang OhSeattle, WA

Gavin O’KeefeChicago, IL

David L. OppenhuizenFarmington Hills, MI

Kenneth OttesenHolmdel, NJ

Megan OurslerDallas, TX

Sun PaeChicago, IL

Patrick J. PalascakWashington, DC

Christopher PatrickNew York, NY

Donika PentchevaMinneapolis, MN

Daniel Ryan PetersonHouston, TX

Ryan R. PoolArlington, VA

Daniel A. PratiHouston, TX

Jeffrey PriceShreveport, LA

Dominik R. RabiejWoburn, MA

Joseph RaffettoWashington, DC

Vinu RajWashington, DC

Vladimir RaskinSeattle, WA

Elizabeth ReillyTacoma, WA

Sean ReillyNew York, NY

David ResserCleveland, OH

Matthew J. RicciardiWashington, DC

David RobertWarrenville, IL

Brian RobinsonNew York, NY

Richard Camden RobinsonLindon, UT

Ann M. RoblOklahoma City, OK

Benjamin C. RothermelVienna, VA

James RyersonNew York, NY

Mala SahaiEl Cerrito, CA

Charles M. SalmonSan Antonio, TX

Edward SandorMinneapolis, MN

Sophia SarwarLos Angeles, CA

Stuart A. SchanbacherAston, PA

Lauren SchlehWashington, DC

David W. SchmidtChicago, IL

Cesare SclafaniTroy, MI

Chase E. ScottAtlanta, GA

Ankhi SenguptaWashington, DC

Cynthia W. SharpSeattle, WA

Lindsey M. ShinnPalo Alto, CA

Joseph A. ShipmanBrookline, MA

Kalimah F. SimsHouston, TX

Allison M. SinclairFort Lauderdale, FL

Cory D. SinclairSalt Lake City, UT

Gautam B. SinghRoyal Oak, MI

Pamela SissonChesterfield, MO

Nathaniel SloanWashington, DC

Janet L SmartCambridge, MA

Bryan C. SmithRochester, NY

Jeffrey D. SmythPalo Alto, CA

Susanne SomersaloSummit, NJ

Jason SopkoCincinnati, OH


Blake SorensenAtlanta, GA

Nikhil SriramanWaterloo, ON, Canada

Gregory M. StarkMinneapolis, MN

Deborah SterlingWashington, DC

Krista K. StoneWestborough, MA

Jeffrey StoverCharleston, SC

Michelle StoverIrvine, CA

Nicholas Scott StroeherCambridge, MA

Jeremy StrohWashington, DC

Nathan P. SuedmeyerLargo, FL

Katherine E. SullivanMissoula, MT

Elias R. SwansonMadison, WI

Roman SwoopesPalo Alto, CA

Lorna TangArlington, VA

Megan L. ThisseRochester, NY

Mark A. ThomasSt. Louis, MO

Jessica ThompsonWashington, DC

Nicole C. TomlinRed Bank, NJ

Jared TongHouston, TX

Jayme M. TorelliAlbany, NY

Nicholas TrenkleAlexandria, VA

Hung-Wei TsaiWashington, DC

Jessica M. TyrusChicago, IL

Nikolas J. UhlirPortsmouth, NH

Jessica L. Van DalenIndianapolis, IN

Emily M. Van VlietSaint Paul, MN

Kirk A. VossDallas, TX

Keyur VyasArlington, VA

Kristine A. WaddellPhoenix, AZ

Christopher R. WalkerMilwaukee, WI

Steven D. WangerowTroy, MI

Ryan WardArlington, VA

Kathleen J. WatkinsLouisville, KY

Nili WexlerNew York, NY

Mark E. WilinskiWashington, DC

Genja M. WilliamsBoston, MA

David S. WilloughbyErie, PA

Beth WolfsonRoslindale, MA

Emily M. WoodChicago, IL

Steven L. WoodWashington, DC

J. Michael WoodsBel Air, MD

John T. WoodsIndianapolis, IN

Seung-Jin YangFort Lee, NJ

Peter YiWashington, DC

Stephen R. YoderEast Syracuse, NY

Kevin Andrew ZeckSeattle, WA

John R. ZoeschPensacola, FL

Yixiong ZouSeattle, WA

PATENT AGENT

Rodney Allen ButlerOsaka, Japan

Miodrag CekicBethesda, MD

Madhavi C. ChanderLittleton, CO

Samuel S. ChoFremont, CA

Etienne De VilliersToronto, ON

Bronwen M. LoebPhiladelphia, PA

Ramin MahboubianSan Diego, CA

Sarah MastousBoulder, CO

Darryl NewellAnn Arbor, MI

Gretchen PetersonSomerville, MA

Barbara Rae-VenterSoquel, CA

Wren H. SchauerBoulder, CO

William E. SchiesserEndicott, NY

Shyh-Jye WangLos Angeles, CA

PATENT AGENT – JUNIOR

Chaun David AiSan Francisco, CA

Kerry Lee AndkenLowell, MA

George A. AndonyanScottsdale, AZ

Ryan M. BelloSeattle, WA

Alexander BoyerChadds Ford, PA

Nan Z. CarrHouston, TX

Kavitha CherukuriWashington, DC

Philip Sergio ChoiBoston, MA

Daniel G. ChungWashington, DC

Aneta CieslewiczScottsdale, AZ

Michael P. CooperSaint Louis, MO

Christopher R. DaltonWaukegan, IL

Kenneth W. DarbyAustin, TX

Lloyd L. DavisHouston, TX

Rebecca F. DavisMinneapolis, MN

Ryan DavisHalf Moon Bay, CA


Neslihan I. DoranBoston, MA

Douglas J. DuffBeavercreek, OH

Kevin C. Evel-KablerSan Francisco, CA

Tresita N. Frianeza-KullbergGastonia, NC

Shirley FungAmsterdam, Holland

Anne-Marie L. GallegosSan Jose, CA

Smadar GefenYardley, PA

Natalie GraceNew Hope, MN

Jessica HesslerGrand Rapids, MI

Siqun HuangWestborough, MA

Yan JiangValley Forge, PA

Susan JohnsonArden Hills, MN

Timothy W. JohnsonReston, VA

Kathleen B. KalafusWashingto, DC

Steven KickRock Hill, SC

Eugenia KiselgofBridgewater, NJ

Joseph Lincoln KomenGermantown, TN

Betty LeeAlexandria, VA

Taeksoo LeeVienna, VA

Marie Lossky-EliasCambridge, MA

Christina A. MacDougallSan Francisco, CA

Craig MacyReno, NV

Olivia M. MarshApex, NC

Thomas C. McKenzieBridgewater, NJ

Jason A. MillerNaperville, IL

Julie J. MuycoChula Vista, CA

Reza NahviMorro Bay, CA

Suanne NakajimaCambridge, MA

James PohlmanPearland, TX

Hassan SahouaniHastings, MN

Clifford A. SchlechtHartford, CT

Sana SfarAtlantic Highlands, NJ

Vivek ShankamNew York, NY

Sanjeev SinghWilton, CT

Brian Charles SmithBoston, MA

Wilfred SoToronto

Sujata SwaminathanFlorham Park, NJ

Robert G. WestOrem, UT

Angela YamauchiFlagstaff, AZ

Benoit YelleMontreal, QC

Shenmin YinElmhurst, NY

Hongling ZouAlexandria, VA

USPTO –PROFESSIONAL

Jordan Aaron BakerBurke, VA

Shawn BuchananAlexandria, VA

Henry T. CrenshawAlexandria, VA

Peter-Anthony PappasAlexandria, VA

Amanda PattonWashington, DC

Sue PurvisAlexandria, VA

Ram R. ShuklaSterling, VA

James C. YagerAlexandria, VA

Katherine M. ZalaskySaint Louis, MO

STUDENTS

Christopher AbidinArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Sky Christopher AdamsAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Brenda AmbrosiusValparaiso, INValparaiso University School of Law

Daniel AndersonChandler, AZArizona State University College of Law

Kirk W. AndersonWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Stephen G. AndersonSt. Petersburg, FLStetson University College of Law

Shalonda ArnoldRaleigh, NCNorth Carolina Central University School of Law

Shovon AshrafWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Gregory Shural AvantSan Francisco, CAUniversity of San Francisco School of Law

Sohaib AzamBowie, MDThe Catholic University of America School of Law

Deborah BabalolaBaltimore, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Camille BarrDavis, CAUniversity of California at Davis School of Law

Deirdre Lynette BeasleyDurham, NCNorth Carolina Central University School of Law

Anahit BehjouBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Elana BertramHawleyville, CTQuinnipiac University School of Law

Lauren BolcarNewark, NJSeton Hall University School of Law


Marina BongiornoBrooklyn, NYFranklin Pierce Law Center

Elise BouchardDurham, NCNorth Carolina Central University School of Law

Aaron P. BowlingWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Cicero H. BrabhamWestfield, NJRutgers, S.I. Newhouse Center for Law & Justice

Phillip BrahamSilver Spring, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Kathryn A. BrauschWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Gregory Nicholas BresciaJacksonville, FLFlorida Coastal School of Law

James L. BrinkleyNew York, NYNew York Law School

Dana Lasha BroughtonSaint Stephen, SCRutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Mindy BrownFairfax, VAFranklin Pierce Law Center

Damon Lamont BurmanBaltimore, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of LawKyle CanaveraWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Jojo CaroLancaster, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Brian CassidyOakton, VARutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Eric CavanaughColumbus, SCUniversity of South Carolina

Gokcen CevikConcord, NHFranklin Pierce Law Center

Shirin ChahalBoulder, COUniversity of Colorado School of Law

Ajay ChandruArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Dennis S. ChangAlhambra, CAChicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute

Jeffrey ChangAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Jodie W. ChengWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Stephanie CheryCorona, NYFordham University School of Law

Matthew R. ChidlowKansas City, MOUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

Dong Soon ChoiAddison, TXCase Western Reserve University Law SchoolHangrak ChoiCamden, NJRutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Nilay ChoksiOldsmar, FLEmory University School of Law

Amrita ChughChicago, ILNorthwestern University School of Law

Randall CloeZionsville, INIndiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

Sedric E. CollinsBlomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Katherine ColvinFillmore, INNorthern Illinois University College of Law

Joe CombsLeonardtown, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of Law

Matthew S. ComptonHouston, TXUniversity of Houston Law Center

Melissa CoombesSpokane, WAGonzaga University School of Law

Taylor CoonPhiladelphia, PAVillanova University School of Law

Rachel CronanWakefield, RIFranklin Pierce Law Center

Manjul DahiyaConcord, NHFranklin Pierce Law Center

Julie DahlgardMiami, FLUniversity of Miami School of Law

Sean E. DalySan Antonio, TXSt. Mary’s University of San Antonio School of Law

Yu-Ming DammannSeattle, WASeattle University School of Law

Kikuyu DanielsMedford, MASuffolk University Law School

Haritha DasariWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Anne DateshWashington, , DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Shaun Laurence DavidFort Lauderdale, FLFranklin Pierce Law Center

Stephanie DavisWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Milagros De PomarWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Matthew DeBoardOrlando, FLFlorida A&M University College of Law

Edward DesJardinsSan Jose, CAUniversity of San Francisco

Paul K. DetermanConcord, NHFranklin Pierce Law Cente

Michael N. DiBenedettoKendall Park, NJVillanova University School of Law

Sam DillionWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Yi DingChicago, ILJohn Marshall Law School

Melissa DolinWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center


Amber DrummondAtlanta, GAFlorida State University College of Law

Thomas DubuissonWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Melinda DudleyWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Timothy A. DunbarDavis, CAUniversity of California at Davis School of Law

Palmer DzurellaLas Vegas, NVUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd S

Chad E. EimersDenver, COUniversity of Denver College of Law

Gregory EmersonCincinnati, OHUniversity of Cincinnati College of Law

Joseph P. EphersonPowder Springs, GAJohn Marshall Law School

Andrew EpsteinWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Kyle B. EpsteinScarsdale, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Liza Erazo MunozWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Lee L. FairchildTallahassee, FLFlorida State University College of Law

Blake FarionSan Diego, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Jessica FarionSan Diego, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Karen FeldmanBloomfield Hills, MIUniversity of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Andy FergusonArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Anders FernstromRockville, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Elana FisherAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

John B. ForrestWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Douglas Joseph FranckenWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Eric M. FriedmanWalnut Creek, CAUniversity of California, Hastings College of the

Michael Ross FriedmanWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Chiaki FujiwaraWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Lisa G. FullerOdenton, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Kellie GarciaHouston, TXSouth Texas College of Law

Gregory GaylisSan Diego, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Mitchell GhaneieSaint Petersburg, FLStetson University College of Law

Leonard M. GiannoneSouth Bend, INNotre Dame Law School

Bradley GiesLake Worth, FLUniversity of Florida College of Law

Grant A. GildehausChampaign, ILUniversity of Illinois College of Law

Justin GillettAnn Arbor, MIThe University of Michigan Law School

Oren GinsbergAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Michael GinzburgWoodbury, MNWilliam Mitchell College of Law

Jessica A. GlajchEndicott, NYCollege of William and Mary

Ali Nora GlaserVoorheesville, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Brian J. GoldbergAlexandria, VAGeorge Mason University School of Law

Jacob GoldinNew Haven, CTYale Law School

Donna P. GonzalesArlington, VAUniversity of Denver College of Law

Naomi R. GonzalezBaldwin Park, CAUniversity of Chicago Law School

Wiliulfo A. GonzalezNorwalk, CALoyola University School of Law, Chicago

Jason Michael Selig GoodmanBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Erica M. GouldBoston, MASuffolk University Law School

Robin Scott GrayEllicott City, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of Law

Dwight Winston GreeneTemple Hills, MDThomas M. Cooley Law School

Shaun GregoryMechanicsville, VAUniversity of Richmond, T. C. Williams School of Law

Daniel GrossForest Hills, NYFordham University School of Law

Michael GuoLos Angeles, CAUCLA School of Law

Damon GuptaChicago, ILChicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Law

Mark C. HagemanWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Justen HansenDenver, COUniversity of Denver College of Law


Mike HeinsWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Wesley HelmholzSanta Clara, CASanta Clara University School of Law

Mark H. HendersonArlington, VAGeorge Mason University School of Law

Eric HenricksIndianapolis, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Christopher HickmanBrooklyn, NYBrooklyn Law School

Zachary HigbeeLutz, FLGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Charles Henry HiserGreensboro, NCUniversity of North Carolina School of Law

Pei-Chih HoRichardson, TXSouthern Methodist University

David Christopher HollyWashington, DCUniversity of Mississippi School of Law

Matthew A. HomykPhiladelphia, PAVillanova University School of Law

Emily HostageCambridge, MAHarvard University Law SchoolRobert HoverAmesbury, MAFranklin Pierce Law Center

Andy I. HsiehWashington, DCGeorgetown University Law Center

Bryan HsuPotomac, MDRutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Tammy HsuWinston-Salem, NCWake Forest University School of Law

Yanhong HuArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Chen HuangLos Angeles, CAUniversity of Southern California

Liang HuangPalo Alto, CA

Yao David HuangVienna, VAGeorge Mason University School of Law

Elisabeth HuntBoston, MASuffolk University Law School

Rahat HusainSilver Spring, MDUniversity of Maryland School of Law

D. Todd IketaniSunnyvale, CASanta Clara University School of Law

David F. JacobsGulfport, FLStetson University College of Law

Siddharth JagannathanNottingham, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of Law

Joshua JamesBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Alex JavellyWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Julius JeffersonSilver Spring, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Marshall JonesRaleigh, NCCambell University

Janet E JustmannBoston, MAFranklin Pierce Law Center

Sitara KadalbalWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Mizue KakiuchiArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Saranya KalaiselvanWalnut, CAIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Yury KalishMcLean, VAGeorgetown University Law Center

Sigalit KashtiCoral Springs, FLSt. Thomas University School of Law

Darren J. KassabWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Ernest A. KawkaHonesdale, PAFranklin Pierce Law Center

Sydney KestleWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Bora KeumBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

David KilgoreSan Antonio, TXSt. Mary’s University of San Anto-nio School of Law

Hang Jung KimBloomingdale, ILLoyola Law School

Kevin KistlerWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Charles W. KocherLake Orion, MIWayne State University Law School

Kevin J. KohlerBath, MIMichigan State University College of Law

Richard KomaikoSan Francisco, CAUniversity of California, Hastings College of the Law

Tai KondoAkron, OHFlorida Coastal School of Law

Jeffrey Michael KraftBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Joshua KreshWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Mart K. KuhnAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Karthik KumarArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Philip KwonWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center


Bernard C. LeePlaya Vista, CALoyola Law School

Kenneth LeeWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Lisa S. LeeMethuen, MANortheastern University School of Law

Megan LeffelmanValparaiso, INValparaiso University School of Law

David W. LeibovitchWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Virginia H. LenahanWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Ross J. LerchBrownsburg, INIndiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

Allison LevinsonPittsburgh, PAUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Law

Stanton A. LewisDallas, TXSouthern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law

Jia LiBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law-Bloomington

Yiheng LiDavis, CAUniversity of California at Davis School of Law

Xiao LiangWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Charlotte LickerN. Bethesda, MDAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Patti LinSan Francisco, CAUniversity of California, Hastings College of the Law

Justin E. LoffredoWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Brett LohmeierCarbondale, ILSouthern Illinois University School of Law

Abbey LopezCincinnati, OHDetroit College of Law at Michigan State University

Yifeng LuNiantic, CTUniversity of Connecticut School of Law

Scott T.Y. LuanPacifica, CAUniversity of California, Hastings College of the Law

Paul Scott LunsfordGreenwood, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Andriy LytvynTampa, FLBoston University School of Law

Jameson MaWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Joseph MaehrArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Amrita MajumdarWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Jacob ManganConcord, NHFranklin Pierce Law Center

Danny M. MansourChatsworth, CASouthwestern University School of Law

Clinton J. MartinAtherton, CAStanford Law School

Brittany M. MartinezAlexandria, VAThe Catholic University of America School of Law

Autumn MaysSan Diego, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Molly McCannWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Jennifer McColloughSan Diego, CAThomas Jefferson School of Law

Connor L. McCuneAlexandria, VAFranklin Pierce Law Center

Aaron P. McGushionSeal Beach, CAChapman University School of Law

Devin McKnightWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

David L. MellmanBrookfield, WIMarquette University Law School

Vanessa MendelewskiHarrisburg, PAWidener University School of Law

Stefani A. MeyerWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Samantha MidkiffAkron, OHUniversity of Akron, C. Blake McDowell Law Center

Marina V. MikhailovaLittle Rock, ARUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law

Sarah Jesslyn MilewskiNew York, NYNew York Law School

Daniel E. ModerickWestlake, OHCleveland State University

Oscar MontezumaWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

William Reid MorrisArlington, VAHoward University School of Law

Jennifer MortonHouston, TXUniversity of Houston Law Center

Brian MosleyTucson, AZUniversity of Arizona College of Law

Daniel MulhallBrooklyn, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

John E. NappiWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Dev NarasimhanValparaiso, INValparaiso University School of Law

Joseph Robert NewmanWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Tina NguyenGermantown, MDGeorge Washington University National Law Center


Stephanie L. NottHoneoye Falls, NYState University of New York at Buffalo School of Law

Kara NovakWashington, DCNotre Dame Law School

Irina NovikovaClinton Township, MIWayne State University Law School

Eric NullNew York, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Ryan P. O`QuinnDurham, NCDuke University School of Law

Melissa OberkfellMableton, GAMercer University Law School

Kassandra Michele OfficerBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Adaeze Fiona OjehLansing, MIThomas M. Cooley Law School

David O’SteenArlington, VAGeorgetown University Law Center

Nancy C. PadronArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Michael ParishWest St. Paul, MNWilliam Mitchell College of Law

John ParkWashington, DCThe Catholic University of America School of Law

Matthew ParkerNorcross, GAEmory University School of Law

Cameron A. ParksLongwood, FLBarry University School of Law

Charles T. PastorCollingswood, NJRutgers, State University of New Jersey

Kiran Kanti PatelPittsburgh, PADuquesne University School of Law

Meerali S. PatelCoral Gables, FLUniversity of Miami School of Law

Scott F. PeachmanCleveland, OHCase Western Reserve University Law School

Juan Jose PedrozaWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Alex PesochinWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Michelle Q. PhamSeattle, WASeattle University School of Law

Michael PieryWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Ralph PowersWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Stephen PulleySalt Lake City, UTBrigham Young University

Kelly B. QuinnChicago, ILDePaul University College of Law

Greg A. RaburnCaldwell, IDUniversity of Georgia School of Law

Ariel RakoverDurham, NCDuke University School of Law

Tom Robert RandallArlington, VAGeorge Mason University School of Law

Arjun RangarajanSan Diego, CAUniversity of San Diego School of Law

Zhigang RaoFishers, INIndiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

James Vincent RazickWashington, DCGeorgetown University Law Center

Jose M. RecioWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Patrick C. ReidyArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Bryan E. RepettoSan Bruno, CAIndiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

Scott Melvin RicheyArlington, VAAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Sean RicksProvo, UTUniversity of Utah College of Law

Sarah L. RiessChicago, ILChicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Law

Daniel J. RitterbeckWayne, PAWidener University School of Law

Robert Luis RodriguezWaco, TXBaylor University School of Law

Mark H. RoggeCleveland, OHThe Ohio State University College of Law

Heather M. RosePhiladelphia, PADrexel University School of Law

Brian RosenbergConcord, NHFranklin Pierce Law Center

Rakesh RoyFloral Park, NYHofstra University School of Law

Andrew RushGulfport, FLStetson University College of Law

Jennifer RussellGreen Cove Springs, FLUniversity of Florida College of Law

Malina Kaur RustemeyerStafford, VAThe Catholic University of America School of Law

Veronica SandovalSeattle, WASeattle University School of Law

Joseph L. SanfordLas Vegas, NVUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

William Lawrence SaranowChicago, ILChicago-Kent College of Law

Stephen H. SchillingDurham, NCDuke University School of LawDaniel L. SchmidAustin, TXThe University of Texas School of Law

Axel Schmitt-NilsonWashington, DCAmerican University, Washington College of Law

George C. SciarrinoNew York, NYNew York Law School


Zachary A. ScottMissoula, MTUniversity of Montana

Diane K. SeayWashington, DCUniversity of the District of Columbia School-David A. Clarke School of Law

Carelene ServiceHumble, TXTexas Southern University, Thur-good Marshall School of Law

Neelaabh ShankarAlexandria, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Ibraham SharifzadaPotomac, MDUniversity of Maryland School of Law

Jarrod SharpBethesda, MDUniversity of Maryland School of Law

Jeffrey D. ShelleyWilmette, ILNorthwestern University School of Law

Prateek ShuklaBrookline, MANew England School of Law

Danielle ShultzNew York, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Mark SiegelBraintree, MANew England School of Law

Mathew SilvermanPlantation, FLNova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center

Joel Craig SimonBayside, NYTouro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

Yashekia SimpkinsRockford, ILFranklin Pierce Law Center

Larry SingerSomerville, MASuffolk University Law School

Gurtej SinghLos Gatos, CASanta Clara University School of Law

James Kenny SintonNorman, OKUniversity of Oklahoma

Amy L. SkeltonBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Brian Thomas SlaterSt. Charles, MOUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

Marcus SmetkaBritton, MIFranklin Pierce Law Center

Bonnie SmithFarmington Hills, MIWayne State University Law School

Clarence W. SnodgrassBaltimore, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of Law

Haining SongNew York, NYColumbia University School of Law

Jingfeng SongGurnee, ILDePaul University College of Law

Robert P. SparksWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Brett SquiresGreensburg, PADuquesne University School of Law

Patrick James StaffordWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Brian W. StegmanFlorham Park, NJGeorgetown University Law Center

Jason Daniel StoneColts Neck, NJAlbany Law School, Union University

Juna Queen SummertonBloomington, INIndiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Cory SuterGulfport, FLStetson University College of Law

Abigail SzeArlington, VAThe George Washington University Law School

Mitra TashakkoriWinston-Salem, NCWake Forest University School of Law

Devesh R. TaskarRobbinsville, NJThe University of Tulsa College of Law

Tom James TatonettiBohemia, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Robert TaylorSunnyvale, CANew York University School of Law

John TeresinskiWashington, DCThe Catholic University of America School of Law

Tara ThiemeWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Lori K. Tonnes-PriddyEverett, WAUniversity of Washington School of Law

Matthew ToutonArlington, VAUniversity of the District of Columbia School-David A. Clarke School of Law

Zachary TownsendRockford, ILNorthern Illinois University College of Law

Matthew A. TrammellCambridge, MANortheastern University School of Law

Adam TuckerJacksonville, FLFlorida Coastal School of Law

Michael H. TurnerArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Frank VineisDrexel Hill, PATemple University School of Law

Ron VogelNew York, NYFordham University School of Law

Belinda WanEnglewood Cliffs, NJBrooklyn Law School

Yao WangArlington, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Lyle Kenneth WedenJacksonville, FLFlorida Coastal School of Law

Jonathan WeinbergWashington, DCGeorgetown University Law Center

Philip WeinsteinApex, NCNorth Carolina Central University School of Law


Eric WengreenStanford, CAStanford Law School

Maya WhitmyerWashington, DCHoward University School of Law

Nathaniel WieheArlington, VAAmerican University, Washington College of Law

Ronald R. WielkopolskiMcLean, VAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Sandra Kay WilburnCary, NCUniversity of North Carolina School of Law

Jennifer WilliamsBel Air, MDUniversity of Baltimore School of Law

Bryan Eugene WilsonState College, PAGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Steven Sheldon WolfeMan, WVWest Virginia University College of Law

Brian WongBelmont, CAGolden Gate University School of Law

Yuen Daniel WongTroy, MIWayne State University Law School

Linda WuSanta Clara, CASanta Clara University School of Law

Peishan WuChicago, IL

Qianhong Helen WuNaperville, ILJohn Marshall Law School

Stacy WuBrooklyn, NYYeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Marguerite L. YangWilmette, ILJohn Marshall Law School

Joseph E. ZahnerSparta, NJSeton Hall University School of Law

Matthew ZapadkaFrederick, MDGeorgetown University Law Center

Mark S. ZhaiWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Yi ZhngArlington, VAGeorgetown University Law Center

Hosni ZoabiWashington, DCGeorge Washington University National Law Center

Brandon Val ZunigaCambridge, MABoston University School of Law

2011 annual meeting ebulletin

Documents

annual meeting sponsors

ip law

computer law

antitrust law

copyright law

aipla student members

aipla online programs

directors meeting dates