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.
Apple v Voip-Pal 9/25 #FederalCircuit sides w V-P, which ex parte sent 6 letters complaining about IPR to PTAB, Congress, etc. PTAB imposed sanction of rehearing the IPR, but unchanged result: claims not obvious. No APA or DP violation that this sanction not enumerated in R42.12b
First precedential patent decision in 3 weeks! Long, complex case re old Ethernet patent. Other appealed issues: claim construction (DCT erred) and improper claim broadening in reexam (yes). twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Network-1 v HP 9/24 #FederalCircuit. DCT held HP s315(e)(2) estopped from challenging validity of N's 2001 pat due to joining parallel IPR as time-barred party. Federal Circuit VACATES this JMOL. Per FaceBk v WCity (9/4), HP NOT estopped; it could not hv raised grounds not in IPR
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) September 24, 2020
Network-1 v HP 9/24 #FederalCircuit. DCT held HP s315(e)(2) estopped from challenging validity of N's 2001 pat due to joining parallel IPR as time-barred party. Federal Circuit VACATES this JMOL. Per FaceBk v WCity (9/4), HP NOT estopped; it could not hv raised grounds not in IPR
FaceBook v WindyCity 9/4 #FederalCircuit 44-pg opinion rules 35 USC 315(c) unambiguous & does NOT authorize same-party joinder or joinder of new issues. Additional views 15-pg opinion that even if 315(c) were ambiguous, PTO's prec Proppant opinion gets NO Chevron/Skidmore defer.
Egenera v Cisco 8/28 #FederalCircuit answers q 1st impression. AIA did NOT change s256 broad meaning of “error” including deceptive intent acts. Judicial estoppel did NOT prevent adding back inventor whom PTO previously removed. Claim constr’n changed at DCt. NOT 102(f) invalid.
@JeffBVockrodt I understand that the Circuit judges without trial court experience want to sit by designation as DCt court judges. That’s admirable. But it can lead to these awkward results! Guess they have to assume the risk.
Baxalta v Genentech 8/27/20 #FederalCircuit (Moore J.) overturns its own Circuit J Dyk sitting by designation as DCt! Bcz "district court erred in construing the terms 'antibody' and 'antibody fragment,'" no-infringement judgment for Genentech Hemlibra® hemophilia drug VACATED.
Neville v FoundationConstructors 8/27/20 #FederalCircuit affirms DCt's 2 claim constructions re "end plate" of tubular "foundation pile" patent. SJ of no infringement was proper. Use of 2 different terms, “protrusion” and “end plate,” in same claim means 2 different structures.
PHYTELLIGENCE, INC. v. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Phytelligence v WaStateUniv 8/27/20 #FederalCircuit affirms DCt's sum j for WSU that Propagation Agreement concerning patented apple tree was an "unenforceable agreement to agree" under WA state law.
Christy Inc v US 8/24/20 #FederalCircuit affirms Ct Fed Claims dismissal. USPTO IPR cancellation of patent without refund of issue and maintenance fees is NOT an "illegal exaction." PTO did not collect fees in excess of its statutory authority. If this "unjust," go to Congress.
Sowinski v CalAirResBd 8/21 #FederalCircuit affirms DCt dismissal of 2d suit for res judicata. Dismissal of 1st suit w/ prej correct; S failed to prosecute; => adjudication on merits (R 41b). Damages arising after 1st suit not recoverable; same accused CARB cap & trade auctions.
Looking forward to watching this: nytimes.com/2020/08/19/mov…
SecurityPeople v Iancu 8/20/20 #FederalCircuit affirms DCt (NDCal) dismissal of APA lawsuit by IPR-losing patentee that challenged Constitutionality of retroactive patent cancellation. Only FedCir could have reviewed Constitutional issue; no collateral APA attack allowed in DCt.
No precedential patent decisions from the #FederalCircuit since 8/4/20. Makes me nervous!
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!
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