The Chisum Patent Academy offers what mainstream Continuing Legal Education (CLE) providers and patent bar review courses simply can’t: premium-quality, rapid-response patent law education and training in a unique seminar-style setting. Co-taught by leading patent law scholars Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller, our intensive two- or three-day seminars are limited to ten (10) participants and conducted in roundtable, interactive style that maximizes opportunities for discussion and debate. We are the antithesis of passive, mega-ballroom CLEs; we welcome those who want to discuss and debate patent law’s myriad nuances and practical strategies. Our Advanced Patent Law Seminars target the latest developments from the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court plus new adjudicatory procedures in the USPTO such as inter partes review; we update our syllabus for every seminar. We currently offer seminars in Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; and Boston, Massachusetts. We also custom-design seminars to be held on-site at corporations, law firms, and other organizations. Our seminars draw experienced patent practitioners seeking a tune-up on latest developments as well as experienced civil/commercial litigators who are relatively new to patent law. Each two-day seminar typically provides 12.0 CLE credits; each three-day seminar typically provides 18.0 CLE credits.
I’m the sole IP counsel in a small law department, so the ability to talk about patents and not have others roll their eyes or glaze over was wonderful.
Hands down, it was the most productive and informative CLE I have attended since I have been practicing.
Thanks for helping folks like us in our day to day practice. We are better for it, and appreciate the great work you do!
Not sure the format could have been better. I really loved the size restrictions, because if you get too many people, most may not feel comfortable enough to talk. I think 10-12 participants is perfect.
Cannot recommend the Patent Academy enough. Even for those of us that have been doing this a long time, it’s a firehose of directly useful information.
What an amazing conference! Such a privilege to engage in small group discussions with thought-leaders like Professors Chisum and Mueller. I can’t wait to attend again next year!
The format is perfect. Small, casual and conversational. Chisum and Mueller switching as primary instructors, but chiming in as secondary instructors, works well.
Good conversation and useful information from other attendees.
Perfect explanation of the cases with great personal insights.
The format enabled us to contextualize the cases in the real world of patent practice and get the reaction of the instructors to the real world application of the cases.
I was very pleased with the selection of topics and the depth; the cases were very current and older hallmark cases were only discussed to the extent necessary for background.
This is one of the best seminars for a patent litigator that I have attended. Other good ones I have been to have centered more on litigation practice rather than substantive patent practice.
The format encourages the participants to get to know each other during the seminar and keep in touch after the seminar.
Exhaustive and elaborate materials provided.
Good job presenting very difficult topics. I liked the informal, relaxed style.
Overall rating 5 stars out of 5 stars! I hope I can convince my boss to let me attend again next year.
The small group format allowed conversation and questions, which was fabulous.
Best seminar ever!
Excellent approach, permitting and encouraging active and lively discussions.
You all have created a great format that allows for folks with a wide variety of backgrounds and experience to each come away with a deeper knowledge base to apply in their practices.
This was the best CLE program I have ever attended.
As an experienced patent practitioner, I am skeptical of CLEs because they typically cover nothing more than what’s generally known. This course was different. It covered topics in great depth and showed me how to use changes in the law to aid my clients.
This is the class that can adapt to anyone working in the field of patent law who wants to expand his horizons.
I loved the focused, traditionally small class type education; great organization and presentation.
I remained completely mentally engaged during the entirety of all three days, due to the seminar’s more intimate format coupled with the quality of the presentations.
The limited attendance facilitated open discussion and kept me engaged.
The style (especially your willingness to entertain all questions) and limited attendance allowed a type of participation that is absent from most seminars.
Scope and depth were very good — depth was several orders of magnitude beyond any other seminar that I have attended.
I found the scope to be highly relevant–especially recent case law decisions.
You guys do a great job explaining patent law and making it easier to understand.
Format was great–feels like you are part of the discussion instead of being spoken to.
The depth of the topics was exceptional, with the presentation getting into important details that might have been missed otherwise.
This is the first (and I’ll bet only) time I’ve gone to a seminar where I got MCLE credit and wished there was an extra day. Highly recommended.
October 1-2, 2020: Boston, MA.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chisum Patent Academy will postpone its Boston seminar until 2021.
GodoKaisha v TCL Commn 8/4 #FederalCircuit q of 1st impression; upholds jury v for G & rejects T's arg that whether pat is essential to any SSO-established standard = q of law to be resolved during claim construction. Essentialness is q of fact for jury. T misread Fujitsu (2010).
@JeffBVockrodt Agree--avoid threshold 101 inquiry and resolve on indefiniteness grounds if at all possible. Better yet, get rid of 101 and decide on 102/103/112 grounds!
Bio-radLabs v 10xGenomics 8/3 #FederalCircuit 39 pgs overturns jury v for B (licensee of UChicago) on 2 of 3 patents re microfluidic systems BUT affirms $24M damages based on DOE infrgmt of 1st patent: NO PHE or vitiation. But construction errors for 2 & 3--preamble WAS limiting.
Chen J concurs in denial of reh'g en banc in American Axle, cautioning us that “[t]he lesson to patent drafters should now be clear: while not all functional claiming is the same, simply reciting a functional result at the point of novelty poses serious risks under section 101." twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Am Axle v Neapco 7/31 #FederalCircuit denied en banc reh'g 6-6. Chen J concurs: Cl 22 = mere use of Hooke's law (of nature) to get desired result. Panel's "nothing more" test same as O'Reilley v Morse (US 1853). Mech/industrial inventions NOT categorically outside s101 challenge.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) August 3, 2020
Am Axle v Neapco 7/31 #FederalCircuit denied en banc reh'g 6-6. Chen J concurs: Cl 22 = mere use of Hooke's law (of nature) to get desired result. Panel's "nothing more" test same as O'Reilley v Morse (US 1853). Mech/industrial inventions NOT categorically outside s101 challenge.
Busy day at #FederalCircuit for precedential patent decisions! Alacritech: IPR re obviousness; XY LLC: 101 ineligibility; IBSA: indefiniteness; Takeda: no PI (license interp); **Am Axle 2019 panel opinion modified (101/Hooke's law) & rehg en banc denied but 6 dissents/5 opinions!
FanDuel v InteractiveGames 7/29 #FederalCircuit 2-1 AFFIRMS PTAB IPR that claim 6 of remote gambling patent was NOT proved obvious. Dyk J dissents: Bd erred by req'g specific mtvn to combine 2 refs in the context of a "simple alternative design choice to a skilled artisan" -> KSR
Gensetix v BaylorCollMed 7/24 split #FederalCircuit: exclusive licensee G canNOT coercively join as co-plaintiff under R19a a state sovereign (UT) in cancer patent suit against Baylor. BUT DCt erred in dismissing suit for lacking necessary party; more R19b factor analysis req’d.
Uniloc2017 v Hulu 7/22/20 #FederalCircuit 2-1 agrees PTAB is statutorily authorized in IPR to assess proposed substitute claims for §101 eligibility, and finding these claims UNeligible, properly denied the motion to amend. Bd's authority re substitute claims broader than 311(b).
DanaFarber v OnoPharm 7/14 #FederalCircuit Lourie, J upholds DMass "extensive factual" decision that 2 scientists were co-inventors on 6 cancer therapy patents with Honjo (2018 Nobel Prize winner). Rejects heightened standard that pre-conception part pub negates co-inventorship.
UniLoc 2017 v Apple 7/9 #FederalCircuit UPHOLDS NDCal's denial of U's motion to seal docs containing U's sensitive $$ info. U's original sealing request "grossly excessive" & its flouting of Local R 79-5 "particularly flagrant." BUT DCt erred re 3d pty licensee confidential info.
FitBit v Valencell 7/8/20 #FederalCircuit holds 1) FB (joined pty) can appeal on ALL challenged cls (cf SAS Inst); 2) Bd erred in correctly construing cl 3 narrowly but not analyzing s103 merits; & 3) Bd should have corrected inadvertent error in dependency of cls 4-5 (see Novo).
In re Boloro Global 7/7 #FederalCircuit vacate/remands PTAB decision in ex parte prosecution appeal. "Director having conceded that the APJ’s appointments were unconstitutional, we see no principled reason to depart here from the resulting remedy applied in Arthrex and VirnetX."
Polls are in the news. Here's one. Proposition: overall, experience has shown that inter partes review has reduced the cost of resolving patent disputes and increased certainty
Genentech v Amgen 7/6/20 #FederalCircuit holds A’s 180-day notice to market its FDA-approved biosimilar of G’s cancer biologic AVASTIN was valid notice under 42 USC 262. A’s 2 amendments to change label & add mfg facility did not change nature of A’s biological product. No TRO.
ElecComm'n v ShoppersChoice 7/1 #FederalCircuit holds Fl DCt abused discretion by denying s285 atty fees. EC's patent =101 uneligible. Pattern of litigation abuse by filing 150+ suits & sending letters for nuisance-value settlements w/o any intent to test infringement or validity
B/E Aerospace v C&DZodiac 6/26/20 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS IPR that claims to aircraft bath walls w recesses wd hv bn obvious. "Strong case" to modify predictable application of known technology. "Simple" tech. Bd properly relied on expert test & evidence-supported "common sense."
Firebug v StrideRite 6/25/20 #FederalCircuit affirms PTAB IPRs that claims in 2 patents on illuminated kids' shoes wd hv bn obvious. Useful compare/contrast tutorial on why one preamble was limiting but other was not (preamble = merely intended purpose). But Bd's error harmless.
In re PersonalWeb 6/17 #FederalCircuit affirms NDCal dismissal of PW's 8 suits/5 "True Name" patents against AmazonS3 customers. PW's prior suit against AmS3 dismissed w prejudice. Claim preclusion here: same accused functionality. Kessler doctrine/trade right also shields AmS3.
@tanakakohsuke From my publisher today: “the page numbering has been fixed and new downloads will have the corrected page numbering.” I do hope you won’t have to buy the Kindle editions again to get the page numbering. Amazon should allow updates of already-purchased copies!
Read Chisum’s 2018 roundup of Federal Circuit precedential decisions on Section 101 patent-eligibility here.
Monthly summaries of Federal Circuit oral arguments by John Dragseth: click here for subscription information.
Read Chisum’s 2017 roundup of Federal Circuit precedential decisions on Section 101 patent-eligibility here.
Read our critique of the Supreme Court’s decision on patent exhaustion here: Commentary on Impression Products v Lexmark International (U.S. May 30, 2017)
View the tribute video to patent law giant Judge Giles Rich (1904-1999), prepared for the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Giles Sutherland Rich American Inn of Court in Washington, D.C. on May 13, 2017 here.
Takeaways from our March 2017 advanced patent law seminar in Cincinnati are here.
©2014 Chisum Patent Academy - All Rights Reserved
Chisum Patent Academy, Inc. 951 Delong Road, Lexington, KY 40515 | (855) - DCHISUM or (855) 324-4786 | info@chisum.com
Website design by Bluegrass Internet Services