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.
Vectura v GSK 11/19 #FederalCircuit Bryson J defers, affirms DCt denial of GSK's JMOL/new trial mtns after jury found V's patent infringed & not invalid. "No basis to second-guess" judgment of "experienced trial judge." Re damages, comparable license had "built-in apportionment."
Sipco v Emerson 11/17/20 #FederalCircuit holds that under 35 USC 324(e) "no appeal" provision, it can NOT review USPTO's determination to institute CBM proceeding. Affirms Bd on merits: claims to remote transmitter wd hv bn obvious. Phillips construction was correct--pat expired.
@patents4life calls the Nov 10 CRBard decision "an example of a bad doctrine, patent eligibility, gone rogue. . . .This opinion conflates the printed matter doctrine with the Mayo/Alice test in a manner that invokes a legal chimera comprising more shock value than logic."
In re Google 11/13/20 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS ex parte 103 rejection of claims to method of distributed content management. Inadvertent or not, Google has forfeited the 2 claim construction arguments now raised on appeal but not at PTAB. Court clarifies "forfeiture" vs "waiver."
Bard v AngioDynamics 11/10/20 #FederalCircuit important post-Alice Q 1st impression. Claims to identifying vascular access port as power injectable via radiogragh marker are NOT 101 un-eligible bcz claims "in their entireties are not solely directed to printed matter." But novel?
In re Apple 11/9 #FederalCircuit 2-1 GRANTS mandamus ptn for WDTX venue xfer to NDCA per s1404 convenience factors. Dissent sees "blatant disregard" for DCt's "thorough" FOFs; anticipates further petitions based "almost entirely on ad hominem attacks on esteemed jurists" as here.
DonnerTech v ProStageGear 11/9/20 #FederalCircuit VACATES Bd's nonobviousness FWD on guitar pedalboard. Mullen ref (elec relay structure) may be "reasonably pertinent to same problem" analogous art. PHOSITA looks outside her field; need not understand ref 100%. Age of ref is N/A.
Footnote 8 is important. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Valiant v Mylan 11/5/20 #FederalCircuit answers q 1st impression: “Acts of infringement” for satisfying 28 USC 1400(b) venue in a Hatch-Waxman litigation occur only where acts related to submission of ANDA occurred, NOT anywhere sales are contemplated for proposed generic drug.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) November 5, 2020
Valiant v Mylan 11/5/20 #FederalCircuit answers q 1st impression: “Acts of infringement” for satisfying 28 USC 1400(b) venue in a Hatch-Waxman litigation occur only where acts related to submission of ANDA occurred, NOT anywhere sales are contemplated for proposed generic drug.
Chevron v UWyoming 11/4 #FederalCircuit 2-1 affirms rare Bd INTERFERENCE decision for UW. Bd's BRC correct: spec gave express def'n of disputed term & written description support. UW priority undisputed for that BRC. Newman, J: extensive dissent/tutorial; no interference in fact!
In re NitroFluids 10/28 #FederalCircuit vacates mandamus denial. WDTx (2d suit) refused transfer to SDTx (1st suit). Related patents asserted against same accused prods. "Backwards" legal error to rule 1st-to-file presumption applies only when balance of factors favors 1st-filed.
AmericanAxle v Neapco 10/23 #FederalCircuit denies AA's motion to stay mandate for pending cert petition bcz no irreparable injury. Concurring, Moore J sees a "fair prospect that [SCOTUS] majority will reverse" the Circuit's "dramatic expansion of a judicial exception to § 101."
Tecsec v Adobe 10/23 #FederalCircuit (30 pgs/several issues) REVERSES DCt’s refusal to admit evidence re alleged inducing infringement. Under GlobalTech, even if claim construction made it objectively reasonable that A not infringing, A might still have subjective intent. Fact q.
@GazEtc Is this the correct patent number?
StJude v Snyders 10/15 #FederalCircuit REVERSES Bd in 1 of 2 IPRs. Four claims to artificial heart valve are NOT anticipated. Based on claim lang and spec, Bd erred in its BRC of "sized and shaped." Patentee's repair contemplates native heart valve remaining, improving prior art.
Warsaw/Medtronic v Sasso 10/14 #FederalCircuit sides w solo inventor S, affirming DCt’s “common-sense” dismissal w/o prej of M’s DJ invalidity action under abstention doctrine. State court jury already found for S on breach of K & awarded damages. DCt did not abuse its discretion
First paragraph of this ScotusBlog article (scotusblog.com/2020/10/suprem…) is a useful summary by Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) (see her "Howe on the Court" blog) of yesterday's #SCOTUS cert grant in Arthrex.
Immunex v Sanofi-Av 10/13 #FederalCircuit affirms 2017 IPR invalidation of I’s claims re isolated human antibodies that bind human IL-4 receptor. Agrees w PTAB’s BRI construction of “human antibodies” including “humanized.” Rejects I’s filing term disclaimer seeking Phillips std.
It seems we may all soon be learning a lot more about severability from SCOTUS — Arthrex case, Affordable Care Act, . . . . twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Two questions presented in Arthrex as framed by the government (see https://t.co/rDUgMNyH7X): 1) are APJs principal or inferior officers?; 2) if principal officers, is any Appointments Clause defect cured prospectively by severing application of 5 U.S.C. 7513(a) to those APJs? https://t.co/XVnyMEuqud
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) October 13, 2020
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