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.
Also no SCOTUS decision today in Minerva v. Hologic (assignor estoppel doctrine). twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
No SCOTUS decision today in Arthrex.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 17, 2021
No SCOTUS decision today in Arthrex.
Chandler v PhoenixSvcs 6/10 #FedCir dismisses appeal of NDTex antitrust judgmt for lack of app jurisdiction & transfers to CTA5. C's claim (WP fraud by enforcing patent earlier held unenforceable) does not depend on resolving substantial q of patent law. Xitronix (2018) controls.
@kenoonan and @PatentDocs report that in the ongoing CRSPR interference, Doudna et al are objecting to Broad Institute’s proffer of the “Codebreaker” biography as hearsay. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
“Code Breaker” is an excellent read. The author makes the science accessible (& does a decent job on the patent aspects), but he really shines in telling the stories of the people involved—colleagues and competitors. Their interactions are not always pretty, but quite fascinating pic.twitter.com/dWhkM0iJqe
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) May 9, 2021
Looks like the Hyatt doppelgänger has been removed from the #FedCir website.
@PerryECooper There’s been no clarification in an hour. Clearly, following us on Twitter is not a top priority for the court 😜😜.
Isn't today's opinion in No.18-2390, Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, the same one the #FedCir already issued on June 1?
SpeedTrack v Amazon 6/3 #FedCir affirms NDCal: no infringement of ST patent (filed 1995) for accessing computer files. Clear & unmistakable prosecution disclaimer (via argument & amendment); claims do NOT cover predefined hierarchical field-and value relationships (which A uses).
An intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the controversial proposed #patent/IP waiver for #Covid-19 vaccines: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the…
Hyatt v Hirshfeld 6/1 #FedCir answers q 1st impression: prosecution laches IS available as PTO defense in s145 action. DCt erred in holding PTO failed to prove pros laches by Hyatt, who filed in 1995 these 4 GATT Bubble apps (each ~400 claims). "Unreasonable & unexplained delay."
BectonDickinson v Baxter 5/28/21 #FedCir correctly rejects Baxter's creative argument that a prior art reference patent cannot be s102(e)(2) art if the ref patent was cancelled in IPR. Statute says s102(e)(2) patent must be granted but does not require that it be currently valid.
Bio-Rad v ITC 5/28 #FedCir affirms ITC. B has 4 patents on microfluidic "chips." Inventors left to form 10X, whose GEM chips infringed (inducing & contributory). 10X was "willfully blind;" knew of B patents at least by complaint. 10X's alleged non-infringing uses = hypothetical.
This added sentence does not appear to change the result: DCt erred in granting summary judgment of no infringement under DOE. Error to apply vitiation. DCt should apply F/W/R test for its doctrine of equivalents analysis. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Edgewell v Munchkin 5/26 #FedCir adds 1 sentence to its 3/9/21 opinion: “This testimony . . . sufficed to create a question of fact precluding summary judgment as to the annular cover and whether the shrink wrap engages the outer annular wall of the Second Generation cassettes.”
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) May 26, 2021
Edgewell v Munchkin 5/26 #FedCir adds 1 sentence to its 3/9/21 opinion: “This testimony . . . sufficed to create a question of fact precluding summary judgment as to the annular cover and whether the shrink wrap engages the outer annular wall of the Second Generation cassettes.”
@MichaelStein16 A good summary by @kenoonan of latest developments in the CRISPR interference: patentdocs.org/2021/05/cvc-fi…
@MichaelStein16 CRISPR is the subject of an ongoing, massive interference. I think it was probably beyond the scope of the book (intended for lay readers) to deep-deep-dive into the priority battles. The chapter titled "Patents" does a decent job, as far as it goes.
Trimble v PerDiemCo 5/12 #FedCir holds specific personal jurisdiction DOES exist in NDCal over patentee in this DJ action, based on "extensive" letters sent to T in Cal. asserting infringement & offering licenses/negotiate. Limits scope of Red Wing (2018), citing Ford (US 2021).
PacificBioscience v OxfordNanopore 5/11 #FedCir upholds jury v that P's claimed method for sequencing DNA was NOT full scope-enabled in 2009. Also affirms no new trial despite O's 3/2020 opening stmt to jury suggesting P trying to exclude O's method, useful in fighting Covid-19.
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
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