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 Cincinnati, Ohio. 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.
February 21-22, 2019: Houston, TX
August 8-9, 2019: Seattle, WA
Continuing to scrutinize SCOTUS "Return Mail." A blooper: Court says: Gov. when sued under §1498, is not subject to an injunction, jury trial or punitive damages, which "are available in ... suits against nongovernmental actors under §271(e)(4).” (e)(4): only for ANDA filers.
Reading through Supreme Court's "Return Mail." I suppose one must simply disregard the imprecise and illogical phrasing. E.g. “Section 102(a) provides that `[a] person shall be entitled to a patent’ as long as the patent is novel.”
UMinn v LSI 6/14 #FederalCircuit 28 pager: state sovereign immunity does NOT protect state entities’ patents from IPR. Applies reasoning of St. Regis Mohawk 2018 (no tribal immunity from IPR). “Additional views” of all 3 judges: no state sov immunity because IPR=in rem proceed’g.
PowerIntegrations v ON 6/13 #FederalCircuit vacates Bd decision killing PI's switched mode PS pats because IPR petition WAS time-barred under 315(b). First impression: should privity & RPI relationships (eg, merger closed) bar IPR if arising after petn but before institution? YES
Samsung v ElmEDS 6/12 #FederalCircuit affirms Bd in 13 IPRs that S did NOT show 105 claims to “substantially flexible” semicond substrate wd hv bn obvious. Bd’s Phillips constrn too narrow. But Bd correct—no reas expectation PHOSITA wd hv combined pr art w reas expect of success
ReturnMail v USPS 6/10/19 #SCOTUS reverses CAFC to hold federal gov’t NOT a “person” who can file an AIA adjudicative post-grant challenge. 6-3 vote; op’n by Sotomayor w/ Breyer dissent. Presumption that “person” does not include sovereign when no def’n of term. Reexam=different.
No precedent oak patent opinions from the #FederalCircuit this week.
Errata issued today for 2/14/19 #FederalCircuit precedential opinion: "Page 7, line 16 replace “Sonitor appeals” with “CenTrak appeals”." Ouch, that's pretty basic . . . . And why did it take over three months to correct?
Join me and @ChisumOnPatents for our Seattle advanced patent law seminar August 8-9, 2019. Details: madmimi.com/p/1d439e
LoneStar v Nanya 5/30/19 #FederalCircuit vacates NDCal dismissal. AMD assigned patents to LS w/ limitations; LS did not hv all substantial rights. BUT LS still has Art III standing. FRCP 19/CAFC prec. compel that LS be allowed to join AMD as necessary party before case dismissed.
Pabst v Samsung 5/23/19 FederalCircuit affirms PTAB IPR that claims to interface device wd hv bn obvious. Important: Taranto J relies primarily on collateral estoppel effect of earlier related IPRs, citing SCOTUS 2015 B&B Hardware decision on administrative issue preclusion.
Sony v Iancu 5/22/19 #FederalCircuit majority (Dyk) VACATES IPR that claims to audio data storage disk wd hv bn obvious. Limitation is 112/6 MPF but Bd erred construing as performed by h/w, not s/w algorithm. Dissent (Newman) no Art III case/contrvsy. Expired pat, DCt lit settled
Quest v CokeBuster 5/21 #FederalCircuit REVERSES DDel judgmt invalidity 2 cls on sale in method pat for display furnace inspection data. DCt erred by disregarding inventor declarations under sham affidavit doctrine as contra depo testimony. Plausible explanation for misstatement.
Novartis v WestWard Pharm 5/13/19 #FederalCircuit affirms DDel in HatchWax lit. Method clm for treating RCC cancer with everolimus wd NOT hv bn obvious. Agree no reas expectn of success, but DCT erred in finding no motvn to combine. Std too rigorous. Not lead cmpd or dosage case.
Amgen v Sandoz 5/8/19 #FederalCircuit affirms NDCal NO infringement under Biologics Act (BPCIA). A's '878 pt reqd sequential process steps. Doctrine of equivs N/A; applies only in "exceptional cases." DCt correctly construed claim 1 of '427 pt “disease treating-effective amount.”
AmarinPharma v ITC 5/1/19 #FederalCircuit (Prost) affirms ITC non-institution of investigation. No cognizable claim under §337. Dissent (Wallach) agrees on merits but would hold FedCir lacks jurisdiction to review ITC non-institution decisions. He would deny a mandamus petition.
ThermoLife/Stanford v GNC 5/1/19 #FederalCircuit (Taranto) affirms SDCal; case=285 exceptional and justified attorney fees based on inadequate pre-filing investigation of infringement. "Unusual" case because infringement was never litigated; no discovery; only validity litigated.
TradingTechs v IBG 4/30/19 #FederalCircuit affirms PTAB that CBM patent NOT 101 eligible. Providing trader w new P&L info in existing trading screen to make quicker deals is NOT tech solution to tech problem; doesn't improve computer function; abstract idea; no inventive concept.
Neptune v Lilly 4/26/19 #FederalCircuit affirms PTAB. Lilly's claimed method of lessening chemo toxicity via pretreat w folic acid & vB12 wd NOT hv bn obvious. Later contrary Lilly statements to FDA were NOT prior art. Skepticism. Petitioner canNOT raise s101 issue in IPR appeal.
The author of this Slate article does not appear to favor the AIPLA proposed s101 legislative amendments. Nice try at historical analogy but me thinks he oversimplifies greatly. apple.news/A_Sg9ygWcRtKZF…
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