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; Washington, D.C.; 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.
This is the class that can adapt to anyone working in the field of patent law who wants to expand his horizons.
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 was the best CLE program I have ever attended.
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.
Excellent approach, permitting and encouraging active and lively discussions.
The small group format allowed conversation and questions, which was fabulous.
Best seminar ever!
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.
Overall rating 5 stars out of 5 stars! I hope I can convince my boss to let me attend again next year.
Good job presenting very difficult topics. I liked the informal, relaxed style.
The format encourages the participants to get to know each other during the seminar and keep in touch after the seminar.
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.
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.
Perfect explanation of the cases with great personal insights.
Good conversation and useful information from other attendees.
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.
September 29-30 and October 3-4, 2016: Washington, D.C. [NEW for 2016! two identical two-day seminars] [Update: as of Sept. 15, 2016, registration for both DC seminars is CLOSED.]
March 9-10, 2017: Cincinnati, OH
August 10-11 and 14-15, 2017: Seattle, WA [two identical seminars]
New rule: The Federal Circuit shall not issue more than two (highly pertinent) precedential decisions in one day.
Cox 9/23/16 "Voice-over-IP"; "processing system" NOT indefinite
Infinity 9/23/16. Two related cases. Holdings: patents invalid as for abstract ideas (Section 101). content to mobile phones, etc.
Husky 9/23/16. No CAFC review of PTAB decision that patent assignor not estopped from petitioning for IPR. Cuozzo. Plager dissent:confusion!
ClassCo 9/22/16 affirming PTAB obviousness ruling even though it erred in evaluating evidence on "praise" and "commercial success"
WesternGeco 9/21/16 willful infringement; DC JMOL of jury willful infring. verdict; remand to consider SCOTUS Halo
Yeda 9/20/16. Priority to German applications; written description requirement; doctrine of inherent disclosure
Lemay 9/19/16. Reversed PTO obviousness rejections but opinion is "nonprecedential." ??
Lifenet 9/16/16. Guess what? Affirm judgment based on jury verdict that patent valid, infringed, $34 million. Patent: soft tissue grafts
Wi-Fi 9/16/16 Inter partes review. PTAB: no Sec. 315 time bar, no privity: not reviewable. SCOTUS Cuozzo not change CAFC precedent (Achates)
McRO on S 101. Kind of sad: the patent's improvement is by substituting "rules" for "artists." World needs more artists, fewer rules.
§101 patent-eligibility: McRO v. Bandai Namco (CAFC 9/13); discuss at Chisum Acad. seminars (Oct. 3-4) in D.C. See chisum-patent-academy.com
MCRO 9/13/16. Sec.101 invalidation reversed. Automated lip sync method. "ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules"
Dynamic 9/12/16. Disqualification of counsel, dismissal of suit w/o prejudice.
Stryker 9/12/16. On remand from SCOTUS; affirm jury willful finding and other issues. Remand to D.C. whether to enhance, award att'y fees
Asia Vital 9/8/16 Declaratory judgment; patent owner demand letter to plaintiff sufficient "substantial controversy"
UCB 9/8/16 claims "monoclonal" antibody; not cover humanized or chimeric (Note: old issue); prosecution history estoppel by argument
Back from short vacation (Ireland). Quiet week at the Federal Circuit. Two precedentials; tweets to follow.
Natural, 8/31/16 Nonprecedential. Rev. PTO obv. ruling in reexam. Prior art: not analogous; unrebutted obj. ev. "No nexus"? wrong!
Veritas 8/30/16. IPR. Affirm broad claim construction; claims unpatentable. Reverse denial of conditional claim amendment: arbitrary.
August 15, 2016: Takeaways from our Seattle 2016 seminars are here.
July 8, 2016: New 5th edition of Mueller’s single-volume text, Patent Law, has published. Ordering information here. Preface here.
Key points and questions raised by Supreme Court’s decision rewriting the law of enhanced damages for willful patent infringement, Halo v. Pulse (June 13, 2016) here.
May 3, 2016: Wolters Kluwer publishes annual update for Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2 (Patent Enforcement). Highlights here.
March 18, 2016: Takeaways summary report from our March 2016 round table seminar is here.
March 1, 2016: Chisummary™ of Lexmark Int’l (Fed. Cir. 2016 en banc) is 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