2011 Annual Meeting eBulletin by AIPLA

BULLETIN American Intellectual Property Law Association

2011 Annual Meeting Issue Washington, DC

William G. Barber 2011-2012 AIPLA President

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

2â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

in this issue...

Meet William Barber, AIPLA 2011–2012 President ........................................................................................7 President’s Report............................................................................................................................................8 Board of Directors Meeting Dates......................................................................................................................5 Copyright Office Affairs.....................................................................................................................................13 Upcoming AIPLA Online Programs...................................................................................................................20 Future Meetings Calendar................................................................................................................................21 CLE Information for 2011..................................................................................................................................22 Thank You 2011 Annual Meeting Sponsors ....................................................................................................24 For AIPLA Student Members: Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition................................................................................26 Robert C. Watson Competition.........................................................................................................................27 AIPLA Strategic Plan........................................................................................................................................43 Committee Reports:

AIPLA Front Cover Photo Credit: Mattox Photography Published from the Association Office AIPLA 241 18th Street South, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22202 (p) 703.415.0780 (f) 703.415.0786 Web: www.aipla.org Domestic Subscription Rate: $60.00 per year Foreign Subscription Rate: $70.00 ($20.00 per copy)

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

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

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

President William G. Barber PirkeyBarber, LLP 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2120 Austin, TX 78701

Officers

Bulletin

Immediate Past President David W. Hill

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-4413

President-Elect Jeffrey I.D. Lewis Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6710

Secretary Elizabeth Ann “Betty” Morgan The Morgan Law Firm 260 Peachtree Street, Suite 1601 Atlanta, GA 30303

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

Treasurer Georgann S. Grunebach Fox Legal Group 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067

Second Vice President Sharon A. Israel Mayer Brown, LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002

Board of Directors

term expires october 2012

Brian B. Darville Brocadiant, PLLC 211 North Union Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314

Philip T. Petti USG Corporation 550 West Adams Street Chicago, IL 60661

Mercedes K. Meyer Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-1209

Michael W. Piper Conley Rose, PC 5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 750 Plano, TX 75024

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

term expires october 2013 Philip S. Johnson Johnson & Johnson One Johnson & Johnson Plaza New Brunswick, NJ 08933

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

Samson Helfgott Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-2585

Kimberly N. Van Voorhis Morrison & Foerster 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304

term expires october 2014 Barbara A. Fiacco Foley Hoag LLP Seaport West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2600

Kevin Tottis Law Offices of Kevin Tottis Suite 1200 211 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606

J. Michael Martinez de Andino Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219

Chen Wang E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Barley Mill Plaza 25/1208 4417 Lancaster Pike Wilmington, DE 19805

Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson AIPLA 241 18th St. S Arlington, VA 22202

General Counsel Mark L. Whitaker Baker Botts, LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

2012 Meeting Dates Monday, January 23, 2012 Las Vegas NV

Thursday, January 26, 2012 Las Vegas, NV

Thursday, March 22, 2012 Arlington, VA

2011 annual meeting issue

Board of Directors

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Friday, September 14, 2012

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Austin, TX Austin, TX

Arlington, VA

Austin, TX

Washington, DC Washington, DC

aipla bulletin

5â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Trademark Central

WE DO ONE THING AND WE DO IT WELL Pirkey 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 eﬀective niche practice is seen as one of the best in the ﬁelds 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 bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

William G. Barber by Louis T. Pirkey

The 104th President of the AIPLA

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.

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.

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’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.

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.

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.

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 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

President’s Report by: William G. Barber, AIPLA President

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 8

aipla bulletin

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 WalMart 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/Programs Annual 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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.

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-inCharge) 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.

USPTO Our 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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

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 Outreach One 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.

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 Education Another 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 twodays.

Advocacy

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.

Amicus 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:

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,

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

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

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 Authorities

Government

and

Administrative

On 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 PatentRelations 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 11

aipla bulletin

in December. On November 3, Naomi Voegtli presented a statement to NAS on our behalf regarding IP management in standardsetting 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 News Several 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!

2011 annual meeting issue

Your reliable partners for intellectual property matters in Pakistan, South East Asia, Arabian Gulf, Middle East & Africa

UNITED TRADEMARK & PATENT SERVICES International Intellectual Property Attorneys Trademark, Patent, Design, Copyright, Domain name registration, litigation & enforcement services

Undertaking Intellectual Property Registrations & Enforcement in Gulf, Middle Eastern, South & East Asian and African Countries through the network of regional offices

(New) Postal & Visiting Address: 85 -The Mall Road, Lahore 54000 Pakistan (Opposite Ferozesons books store / adjacent rado time center)

(Registered) Head Office: West End Building, 61-The Mall, Lahore - 54000 PAKISTAN.

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

Email: UnitedTrademark@UnitedTm.com Websites: www.utmps.com and www.unitedip.com BAHRAIN Postal address: P.O. Box 26754 Adliya, Kingdom of Bahrain

DUBAI (UAE) Postal Address: P.O. Box. 72430, Dubai, UAE

JORDAN Postal Address: P.O. Box 925852 11190 Abdali, Amman, Jordan

Street Address: Suite 21, Bldg 232, Block 321, Old Exhibition Avenue, Al Hoora, Kingdom of Bahrain. Tel: +973-1-7710458 Fax: +973-1-7710459 Email: Bahrain@UnitedTm.com

Street Address: Suites 401- 402, Al-Hawaii Tower, Sheikh Zayed Road, Tel: +971-4-3437544 Fax: +971-4-3437546 Email: Dubai@UnitedTm.com

Street Address: Suite 7, 2nd Floor, Chicago Building, Abdali Amman, Jordan Tel: +962-6-5683088 Fax: +962-6-5683089 Email: Jordan@unitedTm.com

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 Email: Lebanon@UnitedTm.com

QATAR Postal Address: P.O. Box 23896, Doha, Qatar

SAUDI ARABIA Postal Address: P.O. Box 15185, Riyadh 11444, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

SHARJAH (UAE) Postal Address: P.O. Box 22880 Sharjah, UAE

Street Address: 4th Floor, 3rd Entrance, Bin Jaham Al Kuwari Complex, Al Saad Street, Doha, Qatar Tel: +974-4443083, 4443093 Fax: +974-4447311 Email: Qatar@UnitedTm.com

Street Address Al- Thumama Street, Sulaiyamania, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Tel: +966-1- 4655477+966-1-4653128 Fax: +966-1- 4622134 Email: SaudiArabia@UnitedTm.com

Street Address: Suite 203, Buhaira Building, Buhaira Corniche (Al-Majaz) Sharjah, UAE Tel: +971-6-5722742 Fax: +971-6-5722741 Email: UAE@UnitedTm.com 2011 annual meeting issue

OMAN Postal Address: P.O. Box 3441 Ruwi, Postal Code 112, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Street Address: Suite No. 702, 7th Floor, Oman Commercial Centre, Ruwi, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Tel: +968-2-478 7555, +968-2-470 4788 Fax: +968-2-479 4447 12 Email: aiplaOman@UnitedTm.com bulletin

32 • 2011 Spring Meeting • San Francisco, CA

Pallante Named 12th Register of Copyrights James 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 2011 annual meeting issue

from Misericordia University, which also awarded her an honorary doctorate of humane letters. Register Issues Report on Priorities and Special Projects Register 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 Prohibition The 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 aipla bulletin

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 Books The 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 Licenses The 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 14

aipla bulletin

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 copyrightowner 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 localsignal 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.

2011 annual meeting issue

one-quarter of all Internet traffic.”

On 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.

“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.”

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

2011 annual meeting issue

“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 Project The Copyright Office hosted two public meetings in the spring, one in April and the other in May, to improve the aipla bulletin

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 16

aipla bulletin

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 Model A 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 articlebased 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 articlebased 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Registrations The 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 Termination The 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 Amendment Effective 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. 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Claims On 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 Agent The 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 aipla bulletin

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 Practices The 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 Study The 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 18

aipla bulletin

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 Website The new and completely up-to-date online edition of Circular 2011 annual meeting issue

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. 111175), 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 Contents The 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 Rights The 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.

2011 annual meeting issue

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.

aipla bulletin

Upcoming Online Programs AIPLA Online Programs

AIPLA America Invents Act Webinar Series

Don’t Lose Your Appeal! Learn about the New Ex Parte Rules Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:30 - 2:00 pm EDT

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

If you practice before USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, 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. Listen to this presentation and get the tools you will need to ensure that your appeal complies with the new rules.

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 Program 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 proceedings to existing and future patent litigation strategies.

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

Effects of the AIA on Valuations, Licensing & Acquisitions February 15, 2012 12:30 – 1:30 pm EDT

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 20

aipla bulletin

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

Visit http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/live_webinars/qa/Pages/ default.aspx#web4 for a detailed course description. Presented By: Jeffrey Whittle, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP Michael Samardzija, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP Limited CLE Available For 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.”

For CLE information, visit the “Live Web Based Programs” page in the Learning Center on AIPLA’s website. 2011 annual meeting issue

Future Meetings Calendar 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 14-17 AUTM Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA (www.autm.net)

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

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

March 17-19 ASIPI Conference, Antigua, Guatemala (www.asipi.org)

June 20-23 ECTA Annual Meeting, Palermo, Italy (http:// www.ecta.org)

March 23 NYIPLA Annual Judges Dinner, New York, NY (www.nyipla.org)

June 20-23 FCBA Annual Bench & Bar Conference, San Diego, CA (www.fcba.org)

March 28-31 ABA IPL Annual 27th Annual IP Law Conference, Arlington, VA (www.americanbar.org)

June 25-27 ACPC Summer Meeting, Beaver Creek, CO (www.acpcnet.org)

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

July TBD AIPLA Patent Cooperation Treaty Seminar (703-415-0780)

May 4–8 INTA Annual Meeting Dallas, TX www.inta.org

February 2 - 4 Copyright Society Winter Meeting, Los Angeles, CA March 7–10 IPTA Annual Conference, Washington, DC (www.ipta.org.au)

April 1-4, dates TBD LES International Annual Congress, Auckland, NZ (www.lesi.org) April, Date TBD Design Day, co-sponsored by AIPLA, ABA-IPL and IPO, at the USPTO, Alexandria, VA April, Date TBD AIPLA Electronic & Computer Patent Law Summit, San Diego, CA

August, TBD AIPLA Patent Prosecution Boot Camp – Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers Alexandria, VA (703-415-0780) August 2-5 ABA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL (www.americanbar.org)

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

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

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

September 9–11 IPO Annual Meeting San Antonio, TX www.ipo.org

2011 annual meeting issue

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

2013

May 15–17 AIPLA Spring Meeting, The Westin Seattle Seattle, WA October 24–26 AIPLA Annual Meeting, Marriott Wardman Park, Washington, DC

2014 January 29–February 1 AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute, Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa, Phoenix, AZ October 23–25 AIPLA Annual Meeting, Marriott Wardman Park Washington, DC aipla bulletin

CLE Information 2011 Chemical Patent Practice Road Show • Chicago Marriott Downtown Chicago, IL • June 23, 2011 ALABAMA.......................................................... 6.90 ALASKA............................................................. 7.00 ARIZONA........................................................... 7.00 ARKANSAS....................................................... 7.00 CALIFORNIA..................................................... 7.00 COLORADO...................................................... 8.00 CONNECTICUT................................................ 7.00 DELAWARE....................................................... 7.00 FLORIDA............................................................. 8.5 GEORGIA.......................................................... 6.90 IDAHO............................................................... 6.75 ILLINOIS............................................................ 7.00 INDIANA............................................................ 6.90 IOWA................................................................. 7.00 KANSAS............................................................ 8.00 KENTUCKY....................................................... 7.00

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

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

2011 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Seminar • Hilton Alexandria Old Town Alexandria, VA • June 25–26, 2011 ALABAMA........................................................ 13.30 ALASKA........................................................... 13.30 ARIZONA......................................................... 13.00 ARKANSAS..................................................... 13.25 CALIFORNIA................................................... 13.25 COLORADO.................................................... 16.00 CONNECTICUT.............................................. 13.00 DELAWARE..................................................... 15.90 FLORIDA......................................................... 16.00 GEORGIA........................................................ 13.30 IDAHO............................................................. 13.25 ILLINOIS.......................................................... 13.25 INDIANA.......................................................... 13.30 IOWA............................................................... 13.25 KANSAS.......................................................... 15.00 KENTUCKY..................................................... 13.25

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

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

2011 Electronics and Computer Patent Law Summit • William Mitchell College of Law St. Paul, MN • August 16, 2011 ALABAMA.......................................................... 6.50 ALASKA............................................................. 6.50 ARIZONA........................................................... 6.50 ARKANSAS....................................................... 6.50 CALIFORNIA..................................................... 6.50 COLORADO...................................................... 8.00 CONNECTICUT................................................ 6.50 DELAWARE....................................................... 6.50 FLORIDA........................................................... 8.00 GEORGIA.......................................................... 6.50 IDAHO............................................................... 6.50 ILLINOIS............................................................ 6.50 INDIANA............................................................ 6.50 IOWA................................................................. 6.50 KANSAS............................................................ 7.50 KENTUCKY....................................................... 6.50

aipla bulletin

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

OREGON........................................................... 6.75 PENNSYLVANIA................................................ 6.50 RHODE ISLAND................................................ 8.80 S. CAROLINA.................................................... 6.50 TENNESSEE..................................................... 6.50 TEXAS............................................................... 6.50 UTAH................................................................. 6.50 VERMONT......................................................... 6.50 VIRGINIA........................................................... 6.50 WASHINGTON.................................................. 6.50 W. VIRGINIA...................................................... 7.80 WISCONSIN...................................................... 7.50 WYOMING......................................................... 6.50

2011 annual meeting issue

2011 Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers • Hilton Alexandria Old Town Alexandria, VA • August 25–26, 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............................................................. 14.75 ILLINOIS.................................................. 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......................................................... 16.00 PENNSYLVANIA...................................... 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.

Partnering in Patents • US Patent & Trademark Office Alexandria, VA • October 19, 2011 ALABAMA.......................................................... 3.80 ALASKA............................................................. 3.75 ARIZONA........................................................... 3.75 ARKANSAS....................................................... 3.75 CALIFORNIA..................................................... 3.75 COLORADO...................................................... 5.00 CONNECTICUT....................................................... DELAWARE....................................................... 3.80 FLORIDA.................................................................. GEORGIA.......................................................... 3.70 IDAHO............................................................... 3.75 ILLINOIS............................................................ 3.75 INDIANA............................................................ 3.80 IOWA................................................................. 3.75 KANSAS............................................................ 4.50 KENTUCKY....................................................... 3.75

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

OREGON........................................................... 4.00 PENNSYLVANIA................................................ 3.50 RHODE ISLAND................................................ 4.50 S. CAROLINA.................................................... 3.75 TENNESSEE..................................................... 3.75 TEXAS............................................................... 3.75 UTAH................................................................. 3.50 VERMONT......................................................... 3.75 VIRGINIA........................................................... 4.00 WASHINGTON.................................................. 3.75 W. VIRGINIA...................................................... 4.50 WISCONSIN...................................................... 4.50 WYOMING......................................................... 3.75

2011 Annual Meeting • Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington, DC • October 20–22, 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) * 1 Professionalism; 0.5 Ethics ** 14.5 General; 0.5 Ethics; 1.0 E/B

2011 annual meeting issue

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.

aipla bulletin

Thank You to Our AIPLA 2011 Annual Meeting Sponsors Platinum Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP Sponsor: Friday Night Dessert Reception Co-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception Co-Sponsor: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Reception United Trademark & Patent Services Co-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Co-Sponsor: Friday Night Dinner Sponsor: Meeting Signage

Gold

Bronze

Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, PA Sponsor: New Member/First-Time Attendee Reception

Baker Botts, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Morrison & Foerster, LLP Co-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception

Silver

Bingham McCutchen, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd. Sponsor: Friday Lunch Reception

Dickstein Shapiro LLP Sponsor: Post Meeting CD-DVD Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Sponsor: Cyber Café Jones Day Sponsor: Women in IP Law Breakfast Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Perkins Coie, LLP Sponsor: Friday Afternoon Coffee Break PirkeyBarber, LLP Co-Sponsor: Friday Night Dinner Entertainment

Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Edwards Wildman Palmer, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Mayer Brown, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP Sponsor: Thursday Lunch Reception Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP Sponsor: Friday Morning Coffee Break

Crystal

Jamison IP Services Sponsor: Solo Practitioners & Small Firm Reception Mei & Mark Co-Sponsor: LGBT & Diversity Reception

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Pearl Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Mibrath Gilchrist, PA Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Borden Ladner Gervais, LLP Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, PC Sponsor in part: Copyright Committee Reception E.A. Renfroe & Company Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner Fish & Richardson, PC Sponsor 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, PLLC Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner The Kenrich Group, LLC Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception

Leonard Patel, PC Co-Sponsor: Opening Night Reception Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP Sponsor in part: Copyright Committee Meeting Reception Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Saliwanchik, Lloyd & Eisenschenk Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception Sponsor in part: IP Practice in Japan Dinner Stites & Harbison, PLLC Sponsor in part: Copyright Committee Reception Sughrue Mion, PLLC Sponsor in part: Education/Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers Meeting & Reception The Treadstone Group, Inc. Co-Sponsor: LGBT and Diversity Reception

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

25â&#x20AC;&#x192;

The 39th Annual

Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition Presenting Problems in Intellectual Property Law Regional Competitions March 16 - 18, 2012 Boston – Chicago – Houston – Silicon Valley National Finals Competition April 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 26

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Presents:

2012 RobeRt C. Watson Competition Award:

Submission Deadline:

$2,000

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.

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 watsonaward@aipla.org

For More Information, Visit www.aipla.org 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

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

you need patent attorneys who are a slice above the rest.

Minneapolis • Silicon Valley • Austin www.slwip.com 612-373-6900 (A Professional Association)

*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. 28

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting Leadership

David Hill – President

William Barber – President-Elect

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

Q. Todd Dickinson – Executive Director

2011 annual meeting issue

Steve Malin – Program Chair

Manny W. Schecter – Program Vice Chair

aipla bulletin

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Kevin Turner, Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences

Hon. Klaus Grabinski, Bundesgerichtshof

Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights

Kelly Slavitt

Caleb Gabriel

Chad Pannell

Chenyan Wu

Alan Ratliff

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

30â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

More Speakers... Andrew Schaeffer

Blake Reese

Christopher Seaman

Dinesh Melwani

Greg Allen

J. Timothy Meigs

Kristin Jordan Hankins

Leah Chan Grinvald

Mark D. Janis

Monica Barone

Raymond Chen, Deputy General Counsel for IP Law & Solicitor, USPTO

2011 annual meeting issue

Steve Miller AIPLA Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson talks with USPTO Director David Kappos during Thursday’s Luncheon. aipla bulletin

AIPLA Awardees

President David Hill presenting the awards

2011 Copyright Awardees

Anthony Bogucki Angela Coles William Derrickson Karen Garner Winston Kelly

2011 USPTO Awardees

Jordan Baker Kevin Bates Rebecca Eisinger Seth Rappaport Mark Pilaro Myriah Habeeb Tadesse Hailu Scott Haugland Harry Hong James Hook

32â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

Wensing Kuo Huyen Le Robert Struck Jaclyn Kidwell Walker Kelly Choe Katherine Chang Jeanine Goldberg Laura Hammel Kevin Kerns Timothy Maust

Jimmy Nguyen Kaj Olsen Maurina Rachuba Mariceli Santiago Sandra Snapp John Sotomayor Karl Tamai Shane Thomas Hai Tran Cherie Woodward

Wendi Maloney John A. Newton Richard Offutt Karin Sweet

AIPLA salutes the outstanding contributions of the dedicated USPTO & Copyright Office employees

2011 annual meeting issue

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 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’s Inaugural Maurice Klitzman Award Recipient, Sean Ricks

AIPLA Project Award presented to Ehab M. Samuel

AIPLA Project Award presented to Patrick J. Coyne

AIPLA Project Award presented to Michele K. Herman

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

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.

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.

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

AIPLA Excellence Award 2011 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 unwavering commitment to the administration of justice.

34â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Welcome New Members and First-Time Attendees

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

35â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Opening Night Reception

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

36â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Friday Dinner & Entertainment featuring Mark Rivera

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

37â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Dessert Reception

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

38â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

LGBT/Diversity Reception

2011 annual meeting issue

Mei & Mark LLP

AIPLA would like to thank the Co-sponsors of the LGBT/Diversity Reception:

aipla bulletin

39â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Women in IP Law Breakfast

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

40â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Other Receptions

AIPLA would like to thank the sponsors of the Education/ Law Students/Mentoring/Young Lawyers and Small Firm/Solo Practitioners Receptions: Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbr ath & Gilchrist, p.a.

41â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Powerful Ideas. A Powerhouse IP Team. making the most of your intellectual property isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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) 420-2228 hoffmang@dicksteinshapiro.com

42â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

AIPLA 2010-2013 Strategic Plan VISION AIPLA 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.

MISSION We 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 GOALS Advocacy: AIPLA will provide crucial leadership and unbiased analysis leading the way for world-class policy and decisionmaking, 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 bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Committee Reports

Annual Meeting October 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.)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Chair: Harrie Samaras Vice 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 Meeting In 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).

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.

Amicus

Chair: Edward Robert Reines Vice Chair: Jerry R. Selinger

Committee Teleconferences/Committee CLE Meetings/ Quarterly Conference Calls Attendees 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., 44

aipla bulletin

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 Values The Committee’s overall mission is to scrutinize judicial and 2011 annual meeting issue

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.

Advocacy As 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-Piracy Chair: Jonathan Hudis Vice Chair: Crystal Gothard (not pictured)

Advocacy In 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, 112 th 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Law

Chair: Richard S. Taffet Vice 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.

aipla bulletin

Biotechnology

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

Chair: James J. Kelley Vice Chair: Carol Nielsen

Plans for 2012 Mid-Winter Institute

Subcommittees: International Issues Subcommittee Anne 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 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

and

Competition

Webinar On 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 Partnership Meeting

Customer

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 46

aipla bulletin

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 Developments IP Practice in Subcommittee

Latin America

Committee

Forms

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, 2011 annual meeting issue

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-2011bolar.pdf.

Chemical Practice Chair: William B. Kezer Vice 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.

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

Chair: Nancy J. Mertzel Co-Vice Chairs: Tony Y. Hickey (not pictured) and Stefan Mentzer

Global Outreach The 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 Practice

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

Vision, Mission and Values The 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.

Advocacy The 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.

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.

Public Education The 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.

2012 Plans

Member Service

•

The 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.

We are sponsoring a Corporate Attorney Breakfast at the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute to provide a solicitationfree 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.

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Diversity in IP Law Chair: W. Todd Baker Vice 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.

Education

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

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 Camp The 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 Subcommittee The 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 Subcommittee 2010 Annual Meeting At 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 2011 annual meeting issue

In 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, aipla bulletin

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 Committee The 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 mmccorm1@its.jnj. com and Ehab Samuel at samuele@dicksteinshapiro.com. 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.

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.

Electronic and Computer Law Chair: Jacques L. Etkowicz Vice 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. ThomasRasset may change things. Betty set forth the rationale 50

aipla bulletin

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:

2011 annual meeting issue

Implementation of America Invents Act

Status of Peer-to-Patent

Andy 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.

Jack Harvey. In light of changes in 3 rd 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.

Corp-wide and TC training Initiatives Jim 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.

Interviews

Ways to improve prosecution efficiency Tim 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 memberonly 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 Relations

Tim 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.

Lynn 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.

Patents End-to-End

Webinar

Stakeholders role in new system design? The importance of participation by bar in commenting on the new system was emphasized.

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.

Examination of RCEs Andy 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. 2011 annual meeting issue

Professional Programs John 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 aipla bulletin

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 Technologies

• • • • •

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 LeahySmith 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 Service At 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.

Chair: Kirk A. Damman Vice Chair: Robert Capriotti (not pictured)

Fellows

Chair: Sheldon H. Klein Vice Chair: William L. LaFuze

Vision, Mission and Values The 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 52

aipla bulletin

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: 2011 annual meeting issue

• •

• • • •

•

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.

Industrial Designs

Chair: 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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

International and Foreign Law Chair: William S. Boshnick Vice Chair: Matt Adams

Food and Drug

Chair: Denise M. Kettelberger Vice Chair: Stephen B. Parker

Vision, Mission and Values

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.

2011 annual meeting issue

The 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. aipla bulletin

Advocacy The 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 Education The 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 Service The Committee serves its members by keeping them informed in an ever-evolving international legal environment.

Global Outreach The 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 Education Chair: James E. Ruland (not pictured) Vice Chair: Shannon L. Beech

Mission: The Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 54â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

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. 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Commission

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.

Chair: L. Scott Oliver Vice Chair: Kim E. Choate

IP Law Associations

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’

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.

2011 annual meeting issue

Chair: Laura J. Zeman-Mullen Vice Chair: Anthony M. Zupcic

The Committee currently has 3 Subcommittees: the E-mailer aipla bulletin

Sub-Committee, the Micro-Site Sub-Committee, and the Regional Roundtable Sub-Committee. The E-mailer SubCommittee 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 topicspecific “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.

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.

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. 56

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

IP Practice in China

IP Practice in the Far East

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.

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.

Chair: William D. “Skip” Fisher Vice Chair:Ying Tuo

The Committee has no business to report at this time.

IP Practice in Europe

Chair: Kenneth K. Cho Vice Chair: Hung H. Bui (not pictured)

The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Co-Chair: Andrew G. Smith Co-Chair: Joerg-Uwe Szipl

IP Practice in Japan Co-Chair: Joseph A. Calvaruso Co-Chair: Paik Saber

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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

2011 annual meeting issue

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 “premeetings” (prior to the Annual Meeting and Mid-Winter Institute) as well as a week-long delegation visit to Japan, aipla bulletin

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 premeeting 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. aipla bulletin

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 America Chair: James E. Larson Vice Chair: Joaquim Eugenio Goulart

SUBCOMMITTEES: Subcommittee Reporting on IP Developments in South America for 2012 Ignacio Manuel Sánchez Echagüe – Chairman Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal Buenos Aires, Argentina Gisella Barreda – Vice Chairman Baredda Moller Lima, Perú

Subcommittee Reporting on IP Developments in Mexico & Central America for 2012 César Ramos - Chairman Olivares & CIA. Mexico City, México José Paulo Brenes – Vice Chairman Pacheco Coto San José, Costa Rica

2011 annual meeting issue

Subcommittee for the Maintenance of the AIPLA LAC Micro-Web Site Eduardo da Gama Camara Junior – Chairman Dannemann Siemsen Advogados Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

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.

Subcommittee for Development and Integration of Social Networking in Latin America Luis Diego Castro – Chairman Castro & Pal Abogados San José, Costa Rica

Public Education

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 2011 annual meeting issue

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 “internationallyfocused” 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 Service The 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 aipla bulletin

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 midyear meeting to be held in such location.

Law Practice Management Chair: Steven M. Auvil Vice 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.

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

Mission The 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 Recap

Law Students

For 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.

See Education Committee report.

We recommend you view the PowerPoint presentations and

The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Co-Chair: Natalie C. Jones Co-Chair: Deb Sengupta (not pictured)

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

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 Recap In 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 Meeting The 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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

Detailed Plans and Goals for 2012 2012 Mid-Winter Institute The 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 Meeting The Committee will hold a 1-1/2 hour CLE-requested meeting on a topic or topics TBD.

Sub-Committees IP 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 aipla bulletin

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

around the country. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

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

Mentoring

Chair: Daphne C. Lainson Vice Chair: Hetal Kushwaha (not pictured)

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 d evelopments 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.

Vision, Mission and Values The 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.

Membership

Chair: Bryan W. Bockhop Vice Chair: Cheryl H. Agris (not pictured)

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; Strickland. Selects the Mentor of the Year.

Allison

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.

Advocacy 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 TargetSubstantive 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

aipla bulletin

The 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 Education The 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.

2011 annual meeting issue

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.

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

Member Service We 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 Outreach Our 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 mentormentee 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.

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.

Advocacy We 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 Education The Committee has a project to develop due diligence checklists that are initially for members but could eventually be made public.

Member Service We 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 wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

63â&#x20AC;&#x192;

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 Outreach We 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 Programs Chair: Brad Chin Vice 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. 64

aipla bulletin

Advocacy The 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 Education While 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 Service The 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Outreach The 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 Agents

Chair: Esther M. Kepplinger Vice 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.

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

Patent Cooperation Treaty Issues

Patent Law

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.

Mission

Chair: Jay A. Erstling (not pictured) Vice Chair: Stephen G. Kunin (not pictured)

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.

Chair: Kenneth N. Nigon Vice Chair: Marc A. Hubbard

The 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 Advocacy One 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 Education We 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 66

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

issues that we believe it might be interested in addressing.

Activities Related to Member Service The 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 cochair 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

2011 annual meeting issue

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 Outreach Our 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 Litigation Chair: Dianne B. Elderkin Vice 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 aipla bulletin

to attend and discuss ideas for the Committee efforts and programs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or to reach out to the chair and Vice Chair with any such ideas.

Patent-Relations with the USPTO Chair: Gregory D. Allen Vice 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.

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 Programs Chair: Steven C. Malin Vice Chair: Manny W. Schecter

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 68â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

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. 2011 annual meeting issue

Professionalism and Ethics Chair: Raymond Van Dyke Vice Chair: Rodney K. Caldwell

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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Public Education

Chair: Salvatore Anastasi (not pictured) Vice Chair: Michael B. Stewart 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 ethicsrelated 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.Â Many thanks to Past Chair, Guy Donatiello, for his guidance and work in the Committee.

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.

Public Appointments Chair: Michael K. Kirk Vice 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 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

69â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Special Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

Global Outreach

Chair: Thomas T. Moga Vice Chair: DeAnn F. Smith

At 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.

Vision, Mission and Values

Special Committee on IP Practice in Israel

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.

Co-Chair: William H. Mandir Co-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.

Member Service The 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.

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

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

Member Service The 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 Outreach

Vision, Mission and Values The 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.

Advocacy The 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.

As 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 Worldwide Chair: Mark A. Guetlich Vice 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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Public Education The Committee works primarily through the Board, the leadership of the Association, and substantive law Committees. 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

Special Committee on Standards and Open Source Co-Chair: Monica M. Barone Co-Chair: Christopher J. Dervishian (not pictured)

Our Committee will hold a meeting during the 2012 MidWinter 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 72

aipla bulletin

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 Law

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

Periodic Committee Teleconferences The 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 Meetings The 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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.

Trademark Internet

Chair: Mark V.B. Partridge Vice Chair: Kristin Jordan Harkins (not pictured)

Online Programs The 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 Legislation The 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 Consideration The Committee is considering preparing a resolution for the AIPLA Board with respect to the recent Federal Circuit opinion in TianRui v. ITC.

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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Trademark Law Chair: Amie Peele Carter Vice Chair: Kieran G. Doyle

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

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 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

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.)

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 online 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.

Improving external communication, as follows:

Trademark Committee Meetings

•

The 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.

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

aipla bulletin

• • •

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 2011 annual meeting issue

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.

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 Education

Trademark Litigation

Chair: Jennifer L. Kovalcik Vice Chair: Christina Ryan (not pictured)

Vision, Mission and Values The 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.

Advocacy The 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 2011 annual meeting issue

The 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 Services The 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.

aipla bulletin

Trademark Treaties and International Law

Chair: Michael M. Ballard Vice Chair: Jonathan M. Madsen (not pictured)

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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

USPTO Inter Partes Patent Proceedings Chair: Herbert D. Hart Vice Chair: Salima A. Merani (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. The Committee has no business to report at this time.

Trademark-Relations with the USPTO Chair: Linda K. McLeod Vice Chair: Yasmin Tavakoli

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.”

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 76

aipla bulletin

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 2011 annual meeting issue

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 Law Chair: Alyson G. Barker Vice Chair: Hathaway Russell

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 Lawyers

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

SUBCOMMITTEES: Electronics & Communication (Randi Karpinia); Retention & Advancement (Meg Boulware & Nancy Klembus); National Networking Dinners (Carine Doyle) Committee Mission The 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 Advocacy Through 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 inhouse 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 Outreach In 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 2011 annual meeting issue

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-inChief. 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. aipla bulletin

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.

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 cpannell@kslaw.com or Missy Sikorski missysikorski@gmail.com.

If you have not signed up yet to our group email, we encourage you to sign up by sending an email to: AIPLA_YLC+subscribe@googlegroups.com

Perkins Coie is a proud supporter of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

CONTACT: Jonathan

M. James, Partner

PHONE: 602.351.8440 • EMAIL: JJames@perkinscoie.com CONTACT: Michael

O. Warnecke, Partner

PHONE: 312.324.9549 • EMAIL: MWarnecke@perkinscoie.com

ANCHORAGE · BEIJING · BELLEVUE · BOISE · CHICAGO · DALL AS · DENVER · LOS ANGELES · MADISON · NEW YORK PA L O A LTO · 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 CO · S E AT T L E · S H A N G H A I · TA I P E I · WA S H I N G TO N , D. C .

www.perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie llp ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Innovation: A Crucial Component of Our Global IP Practice. 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.

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

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

79â&#x20AC;&#x192;

New Members

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

REGULAR Julie Brown Ackerman Chicago, IL Gregory J. Adams Cleveland, OH Steven E. Adkins Washington, DC Dawn R. Albert New York, NY Louis J. Alex Chicago, IL Amy Allen Hinson Greenville, SC Scott Allison Whippany, NJ Anthony Amaral Suffern, NY Donald R. Andersen Atlanta, GA Brenton R. Babcock Irvine, CA Mark Baghdassarian New York, NY Michele Liu Baillie Marblehead, MA John William Bain Indianapolis, IN Kent Baldauf Pittsburgh, PA Craig A. Baldwin Auburn Hills, MI Eyal Barash West Lafayette, IN

80â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

Michael Barrett Chicago, IL

Michael S. Brayer Milwaukee, WI

Carl C. Charneski Washington, DC

Timothy Joseph Barron Chicago, IL

Monte R. Browder Miami, FL

Aamna Chaudhry Arlington, VA

Audrey L. Bartnicki Abbott Park, IL

Daniel J. Brown Atlanta, GA

Kimberley Chen Nobles Irvine, CA

Scott E. Baxendale Chicago, IL

Philip H. Burrus Atlanta, GA

Karolyne H. Cheng Dallas, TX

Murray B. Baxter Geneva, FL

Jason R. Bush Jackson, MS

Padmaja Chinta Horsham, PA

Collen Beard Decatur, GA

Duncan G. Byers Norfolk, VA

Tanya Coate Houston, TX

Russell Beck Boston, MA

Stephen Byers Los Angeles, CA

Howard M. Cohn Cleveland, OH

William Beckman Peoria, IL

Andrew Byrnes Redwood City, CA

Robert W. Connors Chicago, IL

Kimberly A. Berger Detroit, MI

Mary M. Calkins Arbutus, MD

Lorri W. Cooper Cleveland, OH

Denise Bergin Oakland, CA

Randy Campbell Indianapolis, IN

Nicole S. Cunningham San Diego, CA

Robert Berliner Los Angeles, CA

Rachel L. Carnaggio Denver, CO

John Curry Washington, DC

Lennie A. Bersh New York, NY

Kevin J. Carroll Manchester, NH

Joseph T. Cygan Rolling Meadows, IL

Robert A. Bertsche Boston, MA

Janda M. Carter Peoria, IL

Daniel N. Daisak Princeton, NJ

Christian M. Best Cincinnati, OH

Krista Carter Redwood City, CA

Jubin Dana Menlo Park, CA

Gregory S. Bishop Menlo Park, CA

Kirk A. Cesari Austin, TX

Christopher G. Darrow Lake Orion, MI

David H. Bluestone Chicago, IL

Alistair K. Chan Bellevue, WA

Mark C. Davis Washington, DC

Garry Boggan League City, TX

Hemmie Chang Boston, MA

Peter J. Davis Baltimore, MD

Kevin J Boland Philadelphia, PA

Richard Chang Logan, UT

Valerie Mason Davis Carpentersville, IL 2011 annual meeting issue

Brian Del Buono Wilton, CT

Chris Faye Palo Alto, CA

John S. Goetz New York, NY

Patrick Holmes Carrollton, TX

Michael J. Delaney Nanticoke, PA

Michael A. Febbo San Diego, CA

Latonia H. Gordon Chicago, IL

Kenley K. Hoover Washington, DC

Debra L. Dennett Austin, TX

Joseph Fischer Boulder, CO

John F. Griffith Oakland, CA

Karen G. Horowitz Morris Plains, NJ

Cedric Axel D’Hue Lafayette, IN

Thomas G. Fistek Cleveland, OH

John Blair Haarlow Chicago, IL

Jason Andre Houdek Indianapolis, IN

David B. Dickinson Houston, TX

Adam P. Forman Lawrenceville, NJ

Yoon S. Ham Alexandria, VA

Cindy Huang Alexandria, VA

Juliet Dirba Austin, TX

William S. Foster Washington, DC

Lindette C. Hassan Blue Bell, PA

Mark Hull Peoria, IL

John C. Donch Philadelphia, PA

Matthew A. Fox Allentown, PA

Fred W. Hathaway Alexandria, VA

Jason M. Hunt Madison, WI

Dana Marie Douglas New Orleans, LA

Michael French Atlanta, GA

Steven Wayne Hays Pittsburgh, PA

James M. Hunter Whitehouse Station, NJ

Daniel Drexler Alexandria, VA

James Fussell Washington, DC

Dana W. Hayter Santa Clara, CA

Seong Don Hwang Seoul, South Korea

Lawrence Drucker New York, NY

John T. Gadd Park City, UT

Louis M. Heidelberger Washington, DC

Ali M. Imam Falls Church, VA

Matthew Edwards Durham, NC

Richard A. Gaffin Grand Rapids, MI

George A. Herbster Beverly, MA

Robert Irvine King of Prussia, PA

Yasser E. El-Gamal Los Angeles, CA

John F. Gallagher Melville, NY

Aram D. Hermiz Chicago, IL

Kunihiko Phillip Ishikawa North Potomac, MD

Merle S. Elliott Chicago, IL

Ajay K. Gambhir San Jose, CA

Michael Hess Minneapolis, MN

Jeff Jacobs San Diego, CA

Joan Ellis Washington, DC

Bharat C. Gandhi Midland, MI

Toni Y. Hickey Washington, DC

Leslie L. Jacobs Washington, DC

Nicole Endejann Pittsburgh, PA

Michael Garrabrants San Francisco, CA

Gordon K. Hill Salt Lake City, UT

Jimmie Johnson Wayne, PA

Rahul Engineer Austin, TX

John D. Garretson Kansas City, MO

Jonathan M. Hines Charlotte, NC

Peter K. Johnson Logan, UT

Tamera L. Fair Wilmington, DE

Dean E. Geibel Etters, PA

Sara K. Mooney Hinkley Houston, TX

Robert M. Joynes Alexandria, VA

Eileen Falvey New York City, NY

Jami Gekas Chicago, IL

Craig Hoersten Plano, TX

John Kacvinsky Cary, NC

Hsiao-Ling Fan Taipei 106, Taiwan

Nicolas S. Gikkas Palo Alto, CA

Howard S. Hogan Washington, DC

Stephen Kampmeier New York, NY

Michael B. Farber Carlsbad, CA

Lana A. Gladstein Boston, MA

Russell Holloway Fort Worth, TX

Satheesh K. Karra San Diego, CA

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

Jeff Kichaven Los Angeles, CA

Celia H. Leber Bend, OR

Kevin McDermott Reston, VA

David L. Odom Dallas, TX

Daniel Kim Seoul, South Korea

Thomas Leghorn New York, NY

John H. McDowell Dallas, TX

Christopher J. Palestro Berkley Heights, NJ

Donghyun Kim Seoul, South Korea

Gregory J. Leighton Chicago, IL

Kerry Brendan McTigue Washington, DC

Warrington Parker San Franciso, CA

Margaret A, Kivinski Irvine, CA

Shawn K. Leppo Harrisburg, PA

David Everett Meeks Middletown, NY

Christopher Paulraj Washington, DC

Karl Klassen Seattle, WA

Jack Q. Lever Washington, DC

Trent Menning Houston, TX

Robert E. Paulson New York, NY

David Kleinfeld San Diego, CA

Joe Liebeschuetz Menlo Park, CA

Jennifer Meredith East Aurora, NY

Rafael A. Perez-Pineiro Miami, FL

John L. Knoble Rose Valley, PA

Jessica Lipson New York, NY

Stewart N. Mesher Austin, TX

David M. Perry Philadelphia, PA

Andrew G. Kolomayets Chicago, IL

Debbie Lively Dallas, TX

Christopher J. Mierzejewski Austin, TX

Cameron B. Pilling Seattle, WA

Brian Koo Washington, DC

Douglas E. Lumish Redwood Shores, CA

Charles E. Miller New York, NY

Robert S. Pippenger Baton Rouge, LA

Richard A. Koske Seattle, WA

Paul C. Maier New York, NY

Michael A. Miller Pittsburgh, PA

Paul E. Poirot Washington, DC

David Michael Kress Sparta, TN

Robert L. Maier New York, NY

Samantha Soo-Jung Min Seoul, South Korea

John C. Pokotylo Tinton Falls, NJ

Justin L. Krieger Great Falls, VA

Miriam Majofis San Mateo, CA

David G. Miranda Waltham, MA

Thomas C. Pontani New York, NY

Charles S. Kwalwasser New York, NY

Neil F. Maloney Manchester, NH

Sunjay Y. Mohan Palo Alto, CA

James F. Porcello Toledo, OH

Marc R. Labgold Reston, VA

Neal Marcus Chicago, IL

Ronda P. Moore Boston, MA

Micheal J. Porco Bayville, NY

Scott L. Lampert West Palm Beach, FL

Gottlieb John Marmet Milwaukee, WI

Steven A. Moore San Diego, CA

Jeffrey B. Powers Rochester, NY

Inge Larish San Diego, CA

Michael G. Martin Denver, CO

Raymond R. Moser Shrewsbury, NJ

John L. Purcell King of Prussia, PA

Paul Alan Larson Washington, DC

Jennifer F. Mathews Mooresville, NC

Daniel C. Mulveny Wilmington, DE

Christopher W. Quinn Novi, MI

S. Alex Lasher Washington, DC

Hugh H. Matsubayashi Seattle, WA

John E. Munger Racine, WI

Nathaniel Quirk Charlotte, NC

Teresa A. Lavenue Washington, DC

Ian T. Matyjewicz Clifton, NJ

Carl Myers Peoria, IL

Ann E. Rabe Milwaukee, WI

Frank W. Leak Winston Salem, NC

Pamela J. McCollough Houston, TX

Rona Nardone Frazer, PA

Lauren T. Rabinovic Horsham, PA

82â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Matthew George Reeves Houston, TX

William C. Schrot Rockville, MD

Lee Spencer Carlsbad, CA

Louis W. Tompros Boston, MA

John Resek Boston, MA

David L. Schuler Framingham, MA

Andrew W. Spicer Doylestown, PA

Michael Turner Southfield, MI

Joanne Richards Nicholasville, KY

Daniel J. Schwartz Chicago, IL

Steven R. Sponseller Spokane, WA

Mike Tyler Austin, TX

David B. Ritchie Palo Alto, CA

Kay L. Schwartz Dallas, TX

Adam Roger Steinert Minneapolis, MN

Christopher Verni Cambridge, MA

Jessie Roberts Great Falls, VA

Robert L. Scott Ottowa, ON

Walter S. Stevens Vista, CA

Michelle Virzi New York, NY

Melvin A. Robinson Chicago, IL

Gary Serbin New York, NY

Carli E. Stewart Lafayette, IN

Eric Voelk Foster City, CA

Robert J. Roby Irvine, CA

Kalpesh K. Shah Chicago, IL

Marty Stoneman Phoenix, AZ

Shannon Votava Liberty Lake, WA

Amy Rocklin Boyds, MD

Paula G. Shakelton Cleveland, OH

Joni D. Stutman Blue Bell, PA

Aryn D. Wadadli New Haven, CT

David Roe Plano, TX

Timothy R. Shannon Portland, ME

Stacie Sundquist Los Angeles, CA

Sarah Wager Mountain View, CA

Jerald W. Rogers Wichita, KS

Michael S. Sherrill White Bear Lake, MN

Lisa Swiszcz Boston, MA

Shelby J. Walker Cambridge, MA

Richard A. Romanchik Rochester, NY

Michael J. Shuster San Francisco, CA

Michael F. Taveira Los Angeles, CA

Craig Michael Waller Sewickley, PA

Joseph J. Ruch Washington, DC

Doyle A Siever Damascus, MD

Samir Termanini Cedar Grove, NJ

Thad Watt Irving, TX

Harish Ruchandani Washington, DC

John Vincent Silverio New York, NY

Richard W. Thill San Diego, CA

Eric Wenger Washington, DC

Jonathan Rushman Ada, MI

Dennis C. Skarvan Peoria, IL

James D. Thomas Rockville, MD

Brian Whipps Minneapolis, MN

Pradip Sahu Matteson, IL

James Skippen Ottawa, ON

Gregory Thorne Bay Shore, NY

Mark P. White Lexington, MA

Fernando Brad Salcedo Durham, NC

Stacey C. Slater Portland, OR

Steve C. Thornton Jackson, MS

Philip Wiese Akron, OH

Daniel J. Santos Atlanta, GA

Jason Smalley Reno, NV

Thomas J. Tighe San Diego, CA

Gregory D. Williams Boston, MA

Jeromye V. Sartain Newport Beach, CA

Gregory M. Smith Chicago, IL

Marianne R. Timm-Schreiber Denver, CO

Jeffery T. Williams Salt Lake City, UT

Stephen T. Scherrer Crystal Lake, IL

Michael H. Smith Oklahoma City, OK

John A. Tomich Middlefield, CT

John Thomas Winemiller Knoxville, TN

Joel Karni Schmidt New York, NY

Gary J. Speier Minneapolis, MN

Michael Tompkins Grand Lake, CO

Perry Woo East Setauket, NY

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

83â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Julie A. Zavoral Pewaukee, WI

James W. Cherry Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Inkee Jung Vienna, VA

Christian Nguyen-Van-Yen Arcueil Cedex, France

Jacob Zimmerman Saint Paul, MN

Stefan Danner Munich, Germany

Dieter Kamlah Munich, Germany

Carlos Vicente S Nogueira São Paulo, Brazil

ACADEMIC

Isabel Milner Davies London, UK

Patricio King Mexico, D.F.

Philippe Ocvirk Strassen, Luxembourg

Felix Dietrich Munich, Germany

Oliver William Kingsbury Sevenoaks, UK

James J. Pan Toronto, ON, Canada

Huw Evans London, UK

James Knowles Bristol, UK

Helen Papaconstantinou Athens, Greece

Kuo-Han Fan Taipei, Taiwan

Badrinarayanan Lakshmikumaran New Delhi, India

Ghyo-Sun Park Seoul, Rep. of Korea

Mark Gaynor Saint Louis, MO Sam S. Han Dayton, OH Yaniv Heled Atlanta, GA Julie Hopkins Baltimore, MD Shontavia Johnson West Des Moines, IA Layne Keele Montgomery, AL Charles Rainwater Bethesda, MD David O. Taylor Dallas, TX Theodore Theofrastous Chardon, OH

FOREIGN Colm Ahern Madrid, Spain Craig Armstrong Waterloo, ON, Canada Eric Augarde Toulouse, France Vipul N. Bhuta Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Sylvan Browne Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Margarita Castellanos Bogota D. C., Columbia Dan Chen Beijing, China 84

aipla bulletin

Naoum T. Farah Beirut, Lebanon Jürgen Werner Feldmeier Munich, Germany Francesco Fiussello Torino, Italy Paul Foot Sheffield, UK Janique Forget Saint-Laurent, QC, Canada Jean-Charles Gregoire Ottawa, ON, Canada

Thomas Legler Geneva, Switzerland Pascal Lepage Quebec City, QC, Canada Lei Liu Toronto, ON, Canada Alejandro Loredo Nopoles, Mexico Xianying Cecilia Lou Shanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China

Dinesh Parmar Ahmedabad, India Ramaswamy Parthasarathy New Delhi, India Arpad Petho Budapest, Hungary Flip Petillion Brussels, Belgium Daria Pettus St. Petersburg, Russian Federation Bradley Postma Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Hervé J Grünig Aix-en-Provence Cedex3, France

Michelle Ma Haidian District, Peoples’ Republic of China

Andy Harding London, UK

Kazumasa Matsuura Tokyo, Japan

Tim Hargreaves Edinburgh, UK

Tony Mizzi Perth WA, Australia

Michelle Hedges Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

David Moreland Glasgow, UK

Nick Holmes Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Masashi Moriwaki Kyoto, Japan

Sung-Jin HONG Seoul, Rep. of Korea

Pascal Moutard Grenoble Cedex, France

Marta va Reis e Silva Porto Alegre, Brazil Hector Robinson Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands

Edward John Langhorn Hughes Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Geoffrey D. Mowatt Toronto, ON, Canada

Alex S. Ross Hamilton, ON, Canada

Tadahiko Itoh Shibuya-Ku, Tokyo, Japan

Marcello do Nascimento São Paulo, Brazil

Satyapon Sachdecha Bangkok, Thailand

Devendra Pradhan Kathmandu, Nepal Ajit Bhaskar Raul Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Dan Raymond Ottawa, ON, Canada Teresa Reguly Toronto, ON, Canada

2011 annual meeting issue

Octavio Saldana-Villanueva Mexico City, Mexico

Tom Trinh Vancouver, BC, Canada

Federico Zanardi Landi Torino, Italy

Adam Levine Washington, DC

Anuradha Salhotra Gurgoan, India

Gerard van Walstijn Copenhagen, Denmark

Arnd Ziebell Duesseldorf, Germany

Brent R. Lindon Alexandria, VA

Goncalo Sampaio Lisbon, Portugal

Andrea Vazquez Distrito Federal, Mexico

GOVERNMENT

Kyle O. Logan Crownsville, MD

Christopher L. Samuda Kingston, Jamaica

Rodrigo Velasco Alessandri Santiago, Chile

Shoichi Satake Washington, DC

Rogelio A. Vinluan Global City Taguig, Phillipines

Christian Schaflein Munich, Germany

Aurel Vollnhals Munich, Germany

Rajashree Sharma New Delhi, India

Philipe Walter Duesseldorf, Germany

Ryan P. Sheahan Ottawa, ON, Canada

Yanchun Wang Vienna, VA

Jinghong Shi Guangzhou, Peoples’ Republic of China

Udo Weigelt Munich, Germany

Tatiana Silveira Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Stephen C. Snyder Alberta, Canada Alexander Sobolev Moscow, Russian Federation Min Son Seoul, Rep. of Korea Marcelo Oliveir De Souza Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Rainer Sterthaus Freising, Germany Ladi Taiwo Lagos, Nigeria Ray Tettman Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia Christos A. Theodoulou Larnaca, Cyprus

Elisabeth Wellman-Desbiens Montreal, QC, Canada Allyson Whyte Nowak Toronto, ON, Canada Paul Williams London, UK Dajian Wu Beijing, Peoples’ Republic of China Tianyi Xu Beijing, Peoples’ Republic of China Xun Xu Shanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China Tuba Yamac Montreal, QC, Canada Maki Yamaguchi Alexandria, VA

Benjamin Thompson Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Yukuzo Yamasaki Tokyo, Japan

Christopher Thornham London, UK

Yuzhou Yang Shanghai, Peoples’ Republic of China

2011 annual meeting issue

Anthony Arpin Alexandria, VA James P. Calve Alexandria, VA Rhina Cardenal Alexandria, VA Ross J. Christie Alexandria, VA Mary Anne Copeland Louisville, KY Robert Courtney Washington, DC Jason Daniels Alexandria, VA Joseph O. Dugan Fort Worth, TX David Easwaran Alexandria, VA Gregory L. Edlefsen Walkersville, MD David Ferrance Albuquerque, NM Michael P. Gonzalez Arlington, VA Kelly Hegarty Alexandria, VA Jesus Javier Hernandez Oxon Hill, MD

Kevin P Mahne Alexandria, VA Suzanne Munck Washington, DC Robert M. Patino Springfield, IL Andrew Polay Alexandria, VA Charles Rainwater Bethesda, MD Danielle Ducre Rawls Minneapolis, MN R. Brian Rogers State University, AR Fredric L. Sinder Dayton, OH Robert L. Stoll Washington, DC David Tepper Alexandria, VA Eamonn P. Trainor Latham, NY William J. Washington North Potomac, MD Michael Zelenka Aberdeen, MD Paul Zigas Greenville, NC

Alan Kalb Beachwood, NJ

JUNIOR

John Kirkpatrick Arlington, VA

Stephen D. Adams Knoxville, TN

Dino Kujundzic Alexandria, VA

Nike Victoria Agman Hartford, CT

aipla bulletin

Iftikar Ahmed Houston, TX

Kristin Biedinger Pittsburgh, PA

Anna C. Chau Pearl River, NY

George Davis Richmond, VA

David H. Aleskow Alexandria, VA

Ava H. Billimoria Troy, MI

Jefferson Cheatham Wilmington, DE

Ryan Dean Irvine, CA

Eric B. Andersland Minneapolis, MN

Seth Erik Boeshore Washington, DC

Rebecca Chen Palo Alto, CA

Anuj Desai Atlanta, GA

Bjorn Anderson Atlanta, GA

James D. Borchardt North Liberty, IA

Chai-Chyi Cheng Beaverton, OR

Peter deVore Alexandria, VA

Django H. Andrews Boulder, CO

Paul Borchardt San Francisco, CA

Polin Chieu Houston, TX

Marcus N. DiBuduo Fresno, CA

Sadiq A. Ansari Fairfax, VA

Charles Bove Los Angeles, CA

Alfred Chu Akron, OH

William P. Dickinson Richmond, VA

Patrick M. Arenz Minneapolis, MN

Treyson J. Brooks Dallas, TX

Daniel W. Clarke Boston, MA

Xiaohong Ding Portland, OR

Steven Argentieri Medford, MA

Alyn Brown Indianapolis, IN

Randolph V. Clower Fitchburg, WI

Neal S. Dongre Arlington, VA

Kenneth P. Avila Loma Linda, CA

Lawrence Brown New York, NY

Stephen P. Cole Boston, MA

Eric R. Drennan Denver, CO

Haris Z. Bajwa Washington, DC

Christopher Bruenjes Washington, DC

Nicholas P. Coleman Lexington, KY

Shawn E. Duckworth Chicago, IL

Anthony Balkissoon Chicago, IL

Kevin Bull Eglin, IL

Nick Colic Washington, DC

Grant M. Ehrlich Hartford, CT

Sam J. Barkley Boulder, CO

Steven A. Caloiaro Reno, NV

Elliot Cook Reston, VA

Ryan Elliott Sunnyvale, CA

Christopher Dennis Bayne Alexandria, VA

Erik J. Carlson Los Angeles, CA

Kirk Coombs Salt Lake City, UT

Leon Erikson Reno, NV

Ryann H. Beck Milwaukee, WI

Sarah E. Carmody Seattle, WA

Califf T. Cooper Houston, TX

William Evans Carlsbad, CA

Steven P. Behnken Lisle, IL

Corey M. Casey Kansas City, MO

Judith A. Cothorn Cincinnati, OH

Derek Roger Fahey Coral Springs, FL

Sasan Kevin Behnood Anaheim, CA

Francisco Castro Chicago, IL

Christopher Cowles Watertown, MA

Alvin Yandie Fashu-Kanu Los Angeles, CA

Charles Belle San Francisco, CA

Danielle C. Cendrowski Chicago, IL

Andrew W. Custer San Diego, CA

Paul C. Filon Akron, OH

Meenakshy Chakravorty Cambridge, MA

Alexis Danziger Brooklyn, NY

Christopher M. First Washington, DC

Cyril Chan Washington, DC

Manav Das Louisville, KY

Patricia Michelle Fitzsimmons Durham, NC

Stanley M. Chang Palo Alto, CA

Nicolo Davidson Nashville, TN

Sean Flood Bristow, VA

Natalie Bennett Chicago, IL James Bennin Fairfax, VA Salvador M. Bezos Washington, DC 86â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Stacy Fredrich Atlanta, GA

Colin Heitzmann Washington, DC

Karolina Jesien New York, NY

Michael P. Kochka New York, NY

Raymond M. Gabriel Washignton, DC

Michael Henderson Philadelphia, PA

Zheng Jin San Jose, CA

Joseph J. Koipally Boston, MA

W. Scott Gaines Cincinnati, OH

Mitchell Herbert Boston, MA

David P. Johnson Salt Lake City, UT

Stephen Kopchik Washington, DC

Anastasios G. Garbis Orland Park, IL

Erica M. Hines Albany, NY

Paul Johnson Phoenix, AZ

Esha Krishnaswamy Southfield, MI

Jack Gau Independence, OH

Jared M. Hoggan Dallas, TX

Brendan Jeffrey Jones Durham, NC

Michael Kucher Dallas, TX

Anand George New York, NY

Lynn Marie Holly Edina, MN

Lucinda A. Jones Redmond, WA

Kathleen Kuznicki Baden, PA

Michael T. Ghobrial Philadelphia, PA

Andrew M. Holmes San Francisco, CA

Scott Edward Jones Alexandria, VA

Michael Kyle Goodrich, MI

Andrew R Gilfoil Saint Louis, MO

Tyson K. Hottinger Irvine, CA

Emily M. Judge Cincinnati, OH

Derek S. Lam Boston, MA

Chad Gottlieb Miami, FL

Goeffrey Hu New York, NY

Mike Jungman New York, NY

Clifford R. Lamar New York, NY

Krishna C.F. Grandhi Cleveland, OH

Eric J. Huang Boston, MA

Rivka Jungreis New York, NY

Hannah Y. Lee Redwood Shores, CA

Robert Alan Gurr St. George, UT

Isaac A. Hubner Cambridge, MA

Sheila Kadura Austin, TX

Case A. Lewis Ventura, CA

Brett A. Hamilton Washington, DC

Andrew Hufford The Woodlands, TX

Aruto Kagami New York, NY

Wenjie Li Hopewell Junction, NY

Kevin C. Hamilton San Diego, CA

Eric A. Hultman Grand Rapids, MI

Marc Kaplan Chicago, IL

Anna Linne Somers, NY

Patrick P. Hansen Washington, DC

Andrea Hutchison Chicago, IL

Dhruv Kaushal Boston, MA

Paul Liu Irvine, CA

Elese E. Hanson Chicago, IL

Michael Indrajana San Francisco, CA

Jeffrey Kelsey Indianapolis, IN

Geoffrey Lottenberg Fort Lauderdale, FL

Charmaine K. Harris Pine Springs, MN

Cory Ingle Cincinnati, OH

Lestin Kenton Washington, DC

Patrick D. Lowder Washington, DC

Theodore Michael Hasse San Francisco, CA

Tomoko Ishihara Cleveland, OH

Julia Ann Kim Raleigh, NC

Jamie Lynn Washington, DC

Julie Hawk Cleveland, OH

Rachel Jacques Park City, UT

June Young Kim Minneapolis, MN

Michael N. MacCallum Southfield, MI

Karl A. Hefter Seattle, WA

Bobak P. Jalaie Indianapolis, IN

Darrell D. Kinder San Jose, CA

Dario A. Machleidt Seattle, WA

Joshua C. Heitsman Moline, IL

Peter M. Jay Washington, DC

Adam Kline Philadelphia, PA

Roy J. Maharaj San Jose, CA

2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

87â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Leslie Viviana Marenco Coral Gables, FL

John E. Munro Chicago, IL

Daniel A. Prati Houston, TX

Stuart A. Schanbacher Aston, PA

Kara K. Martin Salt Lake City, UT

Samhitha Chandes Muralidhar Washington, DC

Jeffrey Price Shreveport, LA

Lauren Schleh Washington, DC

Thomas C. Martin Washington, DC

Nadine Mustafa Troy, MI

Dominik R. Rabiej Woburn, MA

David W. Schmidt Chicago, IL

Timothy J. Martin Troy, MI

Harriet Myrick-Jones Tampa, FL

Joseph Raffetto Washington, DC

Cesare Sclafani Troy, MI

Eric J. Martineau Shrewsbury, NJ

Deepa Nama Washington, DC

Vinu Raj Washington, DC

Chase E. Scott Atlanta, GA

Yuhgo Maruta Minneapolis, MN

Bonnie Nannenga-Combs Washington, DC

Vladimir Raskin Seattle, WA

Ankhi Sengupta Washington, DC

Mark Jason Masterson Cleveland, OH

Gerlinde Nattler Ann Arbor, MI

Elizabeth Reilly Tacoma, WA

Cynthia W. Sharp Seattle, WA

Julia Mathis Cambridge, MA

Craig E. Neiheisel Cincinnati, OH

Sean Reilly New York, NY

Lindsey M. Shinn Palo Alto, CA

Stephen G. McClure Cleveland, OH

Jason S. Ngui Woodbridge, NJ

David Resser Cleveland, OH

Joseph A. Shipman Brookline, MA

Christina McDonough Boston, MA

Zhi-Xiang Oh Seattle, WA

Matthew J. Ricciardi Washington, DC

Kalimah F. Sims Houston, TX

Andrew M. Metrailer Plano, TX

Gavin Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Keefe Chicago, IL

David Robert Warrenville, IL

Allison M. Sinclair Fort Lauderdale, FL

Danielle Marie Mihalkanin Redwood City, CA

David L. Oppenhuizen Farmington Hills, MI

Brian Robinson New York, NY

Cory D. Sinclair Salt Lake City, UT

Seth A Milman Boston, MA

Kenneth Ottesen Holmdel, NJ

Richard Camden Robinson Lindon, UT

Gautam B. Singh Royal Oak, MI

Maxwell Minch Gainesville, FL

Megan Oursler Dallas, TX

Ann M. Robl Oklahoma City, OK

Pamela Sisson Chesterfield, MO

Michael R. Mischnick Minneapolis, MN

Sun Pae Chicago, IL

Benjamin C. Rothermel Vienna, VA

Nathaniel Sloan Washington, DC

Kahlil Mitchell Hartford, CT

Patrick J. Palascak Washington, DC

James Ryerson New York, NY

Janet L Smart Cambridge, MA

Philip A. Morin San Diego, CA

Christopher Patrick New York, NY

Mala Sahai El Cerrito, CA

Bryan C. Smith Rochester, NY

Hanna Bondarik Mosolygo Summit, NJ

Donika Pentcheva Minneapolis, MN

Charles M. Salmon San Antonio, TX

Jeffrey D. Smyth Palo Alto, CA

Yasser M. Mourtada Washington, DC

Daniel Ryan Peterson Houston, TX

Edward Sandor Minneapolis, MN

Susanne Somersalo Summit, NJ

Carla Mouta-Bellum Washington, DC

Ryan R. Pool Arlington, VA

Sophia Sarwar Los Angeles, CA

Jason Sopko Cincinnati, OH

88â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

2011 annual meeting issue

Blake Sorensen Atlanta, GA

Nicholas Trenkle Alexandria, VA

J. Michael Woods Bel Air, MD

Wren H. Schauer Boulder, CO

Nikhil Sriraman Waterloo, ON, Canada

Hung-Wei Tsai Washington, DC

John T. Woods Indianapolis, IN

William E. Schiesser Endicott, NY

Gregory M. Stark Minneapolis, MN

Jessica M. Tyrus Chicago, IL

Seung-Jin Yang Fort Lee, NJ

Shyh-Jye Wang Los Angeles, CA

Deborah Sterling Washington, DC

Nikolas J. Uhlir Portsmouth, NH

Peter Yi Washington, DC

PATENT AGENT – JUNIOR

Krista K. Stone Westborough, MA

Jessica L. Van Dalen Indianapolis, IN

Stephen R. Yoder East Syracuse, NY

Jeffrey Stover Charleston, SC

Emily M. Van Vliet Saint Paul, MN

Kevin Andrew Zeck Seattle, WA

Michelle Stover Irvine, CA

Kirk A. Voss Dallas, TX

John R. Zoesch Pensacola, FL

Nicholas Scott Stroeher Cambridge, MA

Keyur Vyas Arlington, VA

Yixiong Zou Seattle, WA

Jeremy Stroh Washington, DC

Kristine A. Waddell Phoenix, AZ

PATENT AGENT

Alexander Boyer Chadds Ford, PA

Nathan P. Suedmeyer Largo, FL

Christopher R. Walker Milwaukee, WI

Rodney Allen Butler Osaka, Japan

Nan Z. Carr Houston, TX

Katherine E. Sullivan Missoula, MT

Steven D. Wangerow Troy, MI

Miodrag Cekic Bethesda, MD

Kavitha Cherukuri Washington, DC

Elias R. Swanson Madison, WI

Ryan Ward Arlington, VA

Madhavi C. Chander Littleton, CO

Philip Sergio Choi Boston, MA

Roman Swoopes Palo Alto, CA

Kathleen J. Watkins Louisville, KY

Samuel S. Cho Fremont, CA

Daniel G. Chung Washington, DC

Lorna Tang Arlington, VA

Nili Wexler New York, NY

Etienne De Villiers Toronto, ON

Aneta Cieslewicz Scottsdale, AZ

Megan L. Thisse Rochester, NY

Mark E. Wilinski Washington, DC

Bronwen M. Loeb Philadelphia, PA

Michael P. Cooper Saint Louis, MO

Mark A. Thomas St. Louis, MO

Genja M. Williams Boston, MA

Ramin Mahboubian San Diego, CA

Christopher R. Dalton Waukegan, IL

Jessica Thompson Washington, DC

David S. Willoughby Erie, PA

Sarah Mastous Boulder, CO

Kenneth W. Darby Austin, TX

Nicole C. Tomlin Red Bank, NJ

Beth Wolfson Roslindale, MA

Darryl Newell Ann Arbor, MI

Lloyd L. Davis Houston, TX

Jared Tong Houston, TX

Emily M. Wood Chicago, IL

Gretchen Peterson Somerville, MA

Rebecca F. Davis Minneapolis, MN

Jayme M. Torelli Albany, NY

Steven L. Wood Washington, DC

Barbara Rae-Venter Soquel, CA

Ryan Davis Half Moon Bay, CA

2011 annual meeting issue

Chaun David Ai San Francisco, CA Kerry Lee Andken Lowell, MA George A. Andonyan Scottsdale, AZ Ryan M. Bello Seattle, WA

aipla bulletin

Neslihan I. Doran Boston, MA

Christina A. MacDougall San Francisco, CA

Shenmin Yin Elmhurst, NY

Douglas J. Duff Beavercreek, OH

Craig Macy Reno, NV

Hongling Zou Alexandria, VA

Kevin C. Evel-Kabler San Francisco, CA

Olivia M. Marsh Apex, NC

USPTO –PROFESSIONAL

Tresita N. Frianeza-Kullberg Gastonia, NC

Thomas C. McKenzie Bridgewater, NJ

Shirley Fung Amsterdam, Holland

Jason A. Miller Naperville, IL

Anne-Marie L. Gallegos San Jose, CA

Julie J. Muyco Chula Vista, CA

Smadar Gefen Yardley, PA

Reza Nahvi Morro Bay, CA

Natalie Grace New Hope, MN

Suanne Nakajima Cambridge, MA

Jessica Hessler Grand Rapids, MI

James Pohlman Pearland, TX

Siqun Huang Westborough, MA

Hassan Sahouani Hastings, MN

Yan Jiang Valley Forge, PA

Clifford A. Schlecht Hartford, CT

Susan Johnson Arden Hills, MN

Sana Sfar Atlantic Highlands, NJ

Timothy W. Johnson Reston, VA

Vivek Shankam New York, NY

Kathleen B. Kalafus Washingto, DC

Sanjeev Singh Wilton, CT

Steven Kick Rock Hill, SC

Brian Charles Smith Boston, MA

Eugenia Kiselgof Bridgewater, NJ

Wilfred So Toronto

Joseph Lincoln Komen Germantown, TN

Sujata Swaminathan Florham Park, NJ

Betty Lee Alexandria, VA

Robert G. West Orem, UT

Taeksoo Lee Vienna, VA

Angela Yamauchi Flagstaff, AZ

Marie Lossky-Elias Cambridge, MA

Benoit Yelle Montreal, QC

aipla bulletin

Jordan Aaron Baker Burke, VA Shawn Buchanan Alexandria, VA Henry T. Crenshaw Alexandria, VA Peter-Anthony Pappas Alexandria, VA Amanda Patton Washington, DC Sue Purvis Alexandria, VA Ram R. Shukla Sterling, VA James C. Yager Alexandria, VA Katherine M. Zalasky Saint Louis, MO

STUDENTS Christopher Abidin Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Sky Christopher Adams Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center Brenda Ambrosius Valparaiso, IN Valparaiso University School of Law Daniel Anderson Chandler, AZ Arizona State University College of Law

Kirk W. Anderson Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Stephen G. Anderson St. Petersburg, FL Stetson University College of Law Shalonda Arnold Raleigh, NC North Carolina Central University School of Law Shovon Ashraf Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Gregory Shural Avant San Francisco, CA University of San Francisco School of Law Sohaib Azam Bowie, MD The Catholic University of America School of Law Deborah Babalola Baltimore, MD George Washington University National Law Center Camille Barr Davis, CA University of California at Davis School of Law Deirdre Lynette Beasley Durham, NC North Carolina Central University School of Law Anahit Behjou Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Elana Bertram Hawleyville, CT Quinnipiac University School of Law Lauren Bolcar Newark, NJ Seton Hall University School of Law

2011 annual meeting issue

Marina Bongiorno Brooklyn, NY Franklin Pierce Law Center Elise Bouchard Durham, NC North Carolina Central University School of Law Aaron P. Bowling Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Cicero H. Brabham Westfield, NJ Rutgers, S.I. Newhouse Center for Law & Justice Phillip Braham Silver Spring, MD George Washington University National Law Center Kathryn A. Brausch Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Gregory Nicholas Brescia Jacksonville, FL Florida Coastal School of Law James L. Brinkley New York, NY New York Law School Dana Lasha Broughton Saint Stephen, SC Rutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law Mindy Brown Fairfax, VA Franklin Pierce Law Center Damon Lamont Burman Baltimore, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Kyle Canavera Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Jojo Caro Lancaster, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law

2011 annual meeting issue

Brian Cassidy Oakton, VA Rutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Amrita Chugh Chicago, IL Northwestern University School of Law

Eric Cavanaugh Columbus, SC University of South Carolina

Randall Cloe Zionsville, IN Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

Gokcen Cevik Concord, NH Franklin Pierce Law Center Shirin Chahal Boulder, CO University of Colorado School of Law Ajay Chandru Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Dennis S. Chang Alhambra, CA Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute Jeffrey Chang Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center Jodie W. Cheng Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Stephanie Chery Corona, NY Fordham University School of Law Matthew R. Chidlow Kansas City, MO University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Dong Soon Choi Addison, TX Case Western Reserve University Law School Hangrak Choi Camden, NJ Rutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law Nilay Choksi Oldsmar, FL Emory University School of Law

Sedric E. Collins Blomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Katherine Colvin Fillmore, IN Northern Illinois University College of Law Joe Combs Leonardtown, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Matthew S. Compton Houston, TX University of Houston Law Center

Kikuyu Daniels Medford, MA Suffolk University Law School Haritha Dasari Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Anne Datesh Washington, , DC George Washington University National Law Center Shaun Laurence David Fort Lauderdale, FL Franklin Pierce Law Center Stephanie Davis Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Milagros De Pomar Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Melissa Coombes Spokane, WA Gonzaga University School of Law

Matthew DeBoard Orlando, FL Florida A&M University College of Law

Taylor Coon Philadelphia, PA Villanova University School of Law

Edward DesJardins San Jose, CA University of San Francisco

Rachel Cronan Wakefield, RI Franklin Pierce Law Center

Paul K. Determan Concord, NH Franklin Pierce Law Cente

Manjul Dahiya Concord, NH Franklin Pierce Law Center

Michael N. DiBenedetto Kendall Park, NJ Villanova University School of Law

Julie Dahlgard Miami, FL University of Miami School of Law

Sam Dillion Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Sean E. Daly San Antonio, TX St. Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University of San Antonio School of Law Yu-Ming Dammann Seattle, WA Seattle University School of Law

Yi Ding Chicago, IL John Marshall Law School Melissa Dolin Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

aipla bulletin

91â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Amber Drummond Atlanta, GA Florida State University College of Law Thomas Dubuisson Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Melinda Dudley Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Timothy A. Dunbar Davis, CA University of California at Davis School of Law Palmer Dzurella Las Vegas, NV University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd S Chad E. Eimers Denver, CO University of Denver College of Law Gregory Emerson Cincinnati, OH University of Cincinnati College of Law Joseph P. Epherson Powder Springs, GA John Marshall Law School Andrew Epstein Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Kyle B. Epstein Scarsdale, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Liza Erazo Munoz Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Lee L. Fairchild Tallahassee, FL Florida State University College of Law

92â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

Blake Farion San Diego, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Kellie Garcia Houston, TX South Texas College of Law

Jessica Farion San Diego, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Gregory Gaylis San Diego, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Karen Feldman Bloomfield Hills, MI University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Mitchell Ghaneie Saint Petersburg, FL Stetson University College of Law

Andy Ferguson Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Anders Fernstrom Rockville, MD George Washington University National Law Center Elana Fisher Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center John B. Forrest Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Douglas Joseph Francken Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Eric M. Friedman Walnut Creek, CA University of California, Hastings College of the Michael Ross Friedman Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Chiaki Fujiwara Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Lisa G. Fuller Odenton, MD George Washington University National Law Center

Leonard M. Giannone South Bend, IN Notre Dame Law School Bradley Gies Lake Worth, FL University of Florida College of Law Grant A. Gildehaus Champaign, IL University of Illinois College of Law Justin Gillett Ann Arbor, MI The University of Michigan Law School Oren Ginsberg Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center Michael Ginzburg Woodbury, MN William Mitchell College of Law Jessica A. Glajch Endicott, NY College of William and Mary Ali Nora Glaser Voorheesville, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Brian J. Goldberg Alexandria, VA George Mason University School of Law Jacob Goldin New Haven, CT Yale Law School

Donna P. Gonzales Arlington, VA University of Denver College of Law Naomi R. Gonzalez Baldwin Park, CA University of Chicago Law School Wiliulfo A. Gonzalez Norwalk, CA Loyola University School of Law, Chicago Jason Michael Selig Goodman Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Erica M. Gould Boston, MA Suffolk University Law School Robin Scott Gray Ellicott City, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Dwight Winston Greene Temple Hills, MD Thomas M. Cooley Law School Shaun Gregory Mechanicsville, VA University of Richmond, T. C. Williams School of Law Daniel Gross Forest Hills, NY Fordham University School of Law Michael Guo Los Angeles, CA UCLA School of Law Damon Gupta Chicago, IL Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Law Mark C. Hageman Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Justen Hansen Denver, CO University of Denver College of Law 2011 annual meeting issue

Mike Heins Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Wesley Helmholz Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara University School of Law Mark H. Henderson Arlington, VA George Mason University School of Law Eric Henricks Indianapolis, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Christopher Hickman Brooklyn, NY Brooklyn Law School Zachary Higbee Lutz, FL George Washington University National Law Center Charles Henry Hiser Greensboro, NC University of North Carolina School of Law Pei-Chih Ho Richardson, TX Southern Methodist University David Christopher Holly Washington, DC University of Mississippi School of Law Matthew A. Homyk Philadelphia, PA Villanova University School of Law Emily Hostage Cambridge, MA Harvard University Law School Robert Hover Amesbury, MA Franklin Pierce Law Center Andy I. Hsieh Washington, DC Georgetown University Law Center 2011 annual meeting issue

Bryan Hsu Potomac, MD Rutgers, State University of New Jersey School of Law

Julius Jefferson Silver Spring, MD George Washington University National Law Center

David Kilgore San Antonio, TX St. Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University of San Antonio School of Law

Tammy Hsu Winston-Salem, NC Wake Forest University School of Law

Marshall Jones Raleigh, NC Cambell University

Hang Jung Kim Bloomingdale, IL Loyola Law School

Janet E Justmann Boston, MA Franklin Pierce Law Center

Kevin Kistler Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law

Yanhong Hu Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Chen Huang Los Angeles, CA University of Southern California

Sitara Kadalbal Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law

Liang Huang Palo Alto, CA

Mizue Kakiuchi Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center

Yao David Huang Vienna, VA George Mason University School of Law

Saranya Kalaiselvan Walnut, CA Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Elisabeth Hunt Boston, MA Suffolk University Law School

Yury Kalish McLean, VA Georgetown University Law Center

Rahat Husain Silver Spring, MD University of Maryland School of Law D. Todd Iketani Sunnyvale, CA Santa Clara University School of Law David F. Jacobs Gulfport, FL Stetson University College of Law Siddharth Jagannathan Nottingham, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Joshua James Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Alex Javelly Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Charles W. Kocher Lake Orion, MI Wayne State University Law School Kevin J. Kohler Bath, MI Michigan State University College of Law Richard Komaiko San Francisco, CA University of California, Hastings College of the Law Tai Kondo Akron, OH Florida Coastal School of Law

Sigalit Kashti Coral Springs, FL St. Thomas University School of Law

Jeffrey Michael Kraft Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Darren J. Kassab Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Joshua Kresh Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Ernest A. Kawka Honesdale, PA Franklin Pierce Law Center

Mart K. Kuhn Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center

Sydney Kestle Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law Bora Keum Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Karthik Kumar Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Philip Kwon Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

aipla bulletin

93â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Bernard C. Lee Playa Vista, CA Loyola Law School Kenneth Lee Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Lisa S. Lee Methuen, MA Northeastern University School of Law Megan Leffelman Valparaiso, IN Valparaiso University School of Law David W. Leibovitch Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Virginia H. Lenahan Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Ross J. Lerch Brownsburg, IN Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis Allison Levinson Pittsburgh, PA University of Pittsburgh School of Law Stanton A. Lewis Dallas, TX Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law

Charlotte Licker N. Bethesda, MD American University, Washington College of Law Patti Lin San Francisco, CA University of California, Hastings College of the Law Justin E. Loffredo Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Brett Lohmeier Carbondale, IL Southern Illinois University School of Law Abbey Lopez Cincinnati, OH Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University Yifeng Lu Niantic, CT University of Connecticut School of Law Scott T.Y. Luan Pacifica, CA University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Clinton J. Martin Atherton, CA Stanford Law School Brittany M. Martinez Alexandria, VA The Catholic University of America School of Law Autumn Mays San Diego, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law Molly McCann Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Xiao Liang Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Amrita Majumdar Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Sarah Jesslyn Milewski New York, NY New York Law School Daniel E. Moderick Westlake, OH Cleveland State University Oscar Montezuma Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center William Reid Morris Arlington, VA Howard University School of Law

Connor L. McCune Alexandria, VA Franklin Pierce Law Center

Brian Mosley Tucson, AZ University of Arizona College of Law

Devin McKnight Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Joseph Maehr Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center

Marina V. Mikhailova Little Rock, AR University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law

Jennifer Morton Houston, TX University of Houston Law Center

Andriy Lytvyn Tampa, FL Boston University School of Law

Yiheng Li Davis, CA University of California at Davis School of Law

Samantha Midkiff Akron, OH University of Akron, C. Blake McDowell Law Center

Jennifer McCollough San Diego, CA Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Aaron P. McGushion Seal Beach, CA Chapman University School of Law

Jameson Ma Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

aipla bulletin

Danny M. Mansour Chatsworth, CA Southwestern University School of Law

Paul Scott Lunsford Greenwood, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington

Jia Li Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of LawBloomington

94â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Jacob Mangan Concord, NH Franklin Pierce Law Center

David L. Mellman Brookfield, WI Marquette University Law School Vanessa Mendelewski Harrisburg, PA Widener University School of Law Stefani A. Meyer Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Daniel Mulhall Brooklyn, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law John E. Nappi Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law Dev Narasimhan Valparaiso, IN Valparaiso University School of Law Joseph Robert Newman Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Tina Nguyen Germantown, MD George Washington University National Law Center 2011 annual meeting issue

Stephanie L. Nott Honeoye Falls, NY State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law

Cameron A. Parks Longwood, FL Barry University School of Law

Ariel Rakover Durham, NC Duke University School of Law

Kara Novak Washington, DC Notre Dame Law School

Charles T. Pastor Collingswood, NJ Rutgers, State University of New Jersey

Tom Robert Randall Arlington, VA George Mason University School of Law

Irina Novikova Clinton Township, MI Wayne State University Law School

Kiran Kanti Patel Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne University School of Law

Arjun Rangarajan San Diego, CA University of San Diego School of Law

Eric Null New York, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Meerali S. Patel Coral Gables, FL University of Miami School of Law

Zhigang Rao Fishers, IN Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis

Ryan P. O`Quinn Durham, NC Duke University School of Law Melissa Oberkfell Mableton, GA Mercer University Law School Kassandra Michele Officer Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Adaeze Fiona Ojeh Lansing, MI Thomas M. Cooley Law School David O’Steen Arlington, VA Georgetown University Law Center Nancy C. Padron Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Michael Parish West St. Paul, MN William Mitchell College of Law John Park Washington, DC The Catholic University of America School of Law Matthew Parker Norcross, GA Emory University School of Law

2011 annual meeting issue

Scott F. Peachman Cleveland, OH Case Western Reserve University Law School Juan Jose Pedroza Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Alex Pesochin Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Michelle Q. Pham Seattle, WA Seattle University School of Law Michael Piery Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Ralph Powers Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law Stephen Pulley Salt Lake City, UT Brigham Young University Kelly B. Quinn Chicago, IL DePaul University College of Law Greg A. Raburn Caldwell, ID University of Georgia School of Law

James Vincent Razick Washington, DC Georgetown University Law Center Jose M. Recio Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Patrick C. Reidy Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Bryan E. Repetto San Bruno, CA Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis Scott Melvin Richey Arlington, VA American University, Washington College of Law Sean Ricks Provo, UT University of Utah College of Law Sarah L. Riess Chicago, IL Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Law

Mark H. Rogge Cleveland, OH The Ohio State University College of Law Heather M. Rose Philadelphia, PA Drexel University School of Law Brian Rosenberg Concord, NH Franklin Pierce Law Center Rakesh Roy Floral Park, NY Hofstra University School of Law Andrew Rush Gulfport, FL Stetson University College of Law Jennifer Russell Green Cove Springs, FL University of Florida College of Law Malina Kaur Rustemeyer Stafford, VA The Catholic University of America School of Law Veronica Sandoval Seattle, WA Seattle University School of Law Joseph L. Sanford Las Vegas, NV University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law William Lawrence Saranow Chicago, IL Chicago-Kent College of Law Stephen H. Schilling Durham, NC Duke University School of Law Daniel L. Schmid Austin, TX The University of Texas School of Law

Daniel J. Ritterbeck Wayne, PA Widener University School of Law

Axel Schmitt-Nilson Washington, DC American University, Washington College of Law

Robert Luis Rodriguez Waco, TX Baylor University School of Law

George C. Sciarrino New York, NY New York Law School aipla bulletin

Zachary A. Scott Missoula, MT University of Montana

Yashekia Simpkins Rockford, IL Franklin Pierce Law Center

Diane K. Seay Washington, DC University of the District of Columbia School-David A. Clarke School of Law

Larry Singer Somerville, MA Suffolk University Law School

Carelene Service Humble, TX Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law Neelaabh Shankar Alexandria, VA George Washington University National Law Center Ibraham Sharifzada Potomac, MD University of Maryland School of Law Jarrod Sharp Bethesda, MD University of Maryland School of Law Jeffrey D. Shelley Wilmette, IL Northwestern University School of Law Prateek Shukla Brookline, MA New England School of Law Danielle Shultz New York, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Mark Siegel Braintree, MA New England School of Law Mathew Silverman Plantation, FL Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center Joel Craig Simon Bayside, NY Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

96â&#x20AC;&#x192;

aipla bulletin

Gurtej Singh Los Gatos, CA Santa Clara University School of Law James Kenny Sinton Norman, OK University of Oklahoma Amy L. Skelton Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Brian Thomas Slater St. Charles, MO University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Marcus Smetka Britton, MI Franklin Pierce Law Center Bonnie Smith Farmington Hills, MI Wayne State University Law School Clarence W. Snodgrass Baltimore, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Haining Song New York, NY Columbia University School of Law Jingfeng Song Gurnee, IL DePaul University College of Law Robert P. Sparks Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Brett Squires Greensburg, PA Duquesne University School of Law

Patrick James Stafford Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Lori K. Tonnes-Priddy Everett, WA University of Washington School of Law

Brian W. Stegman Florham Park, NJ Georgetown University Law Center

Matthew Touton Arlington, VA University of the District of Columbia School-David A. Clarke School of Law

Jason Daniel Stone Colts Neck, NJ Albany Law School, Union University Juna Queen Summerton Bloomington, IN Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Cory Suter Gulfport, FL Stetson University College of Law Abigail Sze Arlington, VA The George Washington University Law School Mitra Tashakkori Winston-Salem, NC Wake Forest University School of Law Devesh R. Taskar Robbinsville, NJ The University of Tulsa College of Law Tom James Tatonetti Bohemia, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Robert Taylor Sunnyvale, CA New York University School of Law John Teresinski Washington, DC The Catholic University of America School of Law Tara Thieme Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center

Zachary Townsend Rockford, IL Northern Illinois University College of Law Matthew A. Trammell Cambridge, MA Northeastern University School of Law Adam Tucker Jacksonville, FL Florida Coastal School of Law Michael H. Turner Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Frank Vineis Drexel Hill, PA Temple University School of Law Ron Vogel New York, NY Fordham University School of Law Belinda Wan Englewood Cliffs, NJ Brooklyn Law School Yao Wang Arlington, VA George Washington University National Law Center Lyle Kenneth Weden Jacksonville, FL Florida Coastal School of Law Jonathan Weinberg Washington, DC Georgetown University Law Center Philip Weinstein Apex, NC North Carolina Central University School of Law 2011 annual meeting issue

Eric Wengreen Stanford, CA Stanford Law School Maya Whitmyer Washington, DC Howard University School of Law Nathaniel Wiehe Arlington, VA American University, Washington College of Law Ronald R. Wielkopolski McLean, VA George Washington University National Law Center Sandra Kay Wilburn Cary, NC University of North Carolina School of Law Jennifer Williams Bel Air, MD University of Baltimore School of Law Bryan Eugene Wilson State College, PA George Washington University National Law Center Steven Sheldon Wolfe Man, WV West Virginia University College of Law

Stacy Wu Brooklyn, NY Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Marguerite L. Yang Wilmette, IL John Marshall Law School Joseph E. Zahner Sparta, NJ Seton Hall University School of Law Matthew Zapadka Frederick, MD Georgetown University Law Center Mark S. Zhai Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Yi Zhng Arlington, VA Georgetown University Law Center Hosni Zoabi Washington, DC George Washington University National Law Center Brandon Val Zuniga Cambridge, MA Boston University School of Law

Brian Wong Belmont, CA Golden Gate University School of Law Yuen Daniel Wong Troy, MI Wayne State University Law School Linda Wu Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara University School of Law Peishan Wu Chicago, IL Qianhong Helen Wu Naperville, IL John Marshall Law School 2011 annual meeting issue

aipla bulletin

97â&#x20AC;&#x192;