Highlights from the AIPLA annual meeting
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Highlights from the AIPLA annual meeting

The AIPLA annual meeting took place in Washington DC last week, with the Supreme Court’s tinkering with Section 101 a particularly hot topic. All of Managing IP’s coverage from the event is now online and our daily newsletter is available to download

day20220cover20aipla20daily20report.jpgAs literary scholars know, Room 101 in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is where one is subjected to their worst nightmare. Judging by some of the talk at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) annual meeting, it would seem likely for many IP practitioners that this room would contain the Supreme Court’s tinkering with the section of the Patent Act bearing the same number.

You can see all of our coverage from the meeting by visiting www.managingip.com/aiplaAM14.

You can also download PDFs of the AIPLA Daily Report by visiting http://www.managingip.com/Conference-Newspapers.html

Speakers at the AIPLA meeting raised fears that 101 was being distorted by recent court decisions such as Alice and Myriad. Qualcomm’s Laurie Self said the initial threshold test of whether an invention is eligible subject matter for patent protection should be a coarse filter.

“Unfortunately the Supreme Court keeps moving 101 in a direction that increasingly seems to conflate 101 analysis with the statutory criteria of 102 or 103 or 112. That’s really problematic for R&D intensive industries and organizations in this country,” she said. “The good news is that, at least in our sector, the Supreme Court did not create a categorical ban for subject matter eligibility for so-called software related patents. But it keeps flirting with this notion of a categorical ban and that is problematic.”

David Kappos of Cravath Swaine & Moore, and former director of the USPTO, agreed, noting that 101 was never meant to do the heavy lifting being demanded of it now. “It encourages 101 to become the answer to every question about the patentability of inventions, and it takes what was always meant to be a very coarse filter – the filter that should apply at the very end as a backstop – and makes it into a much more granular filter that is trying to lift more than it ­possibly can.”

He continued: “If there was any mistake made in the AIA, it was to leave 101 as 101. We should have moved it to 999! Leaving it as 101 encourages courts and others to get confused and think it’s the first thing they need to look at.”


Randall Rader, former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, was also critical of what has been done to 101. He called for legislative correction to provide clarity.

“The point is the law doesn’t make any sense any more, and when it makes no sense any more it has to be rewritten,” said Rader in one of the panel discussions at the AIPLA meeting.

Other highlights included Michelle Lee’s first speech since being nominated for USPTO director, the AIPLA revealing its new executive director and much discussion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

All of Managing IP’s coverage from the meeting is here: www.managingip.com/aiplaAM14.

Download PDFs of the AIPLA Daily Report here: http://www.managingip.com/Conference-Newspapers.html

Some of the highlights include:

-> Worries over Supreme Court’s flirting with 101

-> Rader: “The law makes no sense any more”

-> USPTO's Lee defends "critical" telework program

-> AIPLA names Lisa Jorgenson as executive director

-> Phil Johnson calls for fairness in PTAB proceedings

-> Interview: Sobon looks back on a busy year as AIPLA president

-> Are trade secrets the next troll target?

-> Judge Chen stresses importance of AIA

-> AIPLA calls for changes in PTAB proceedings

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility