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.
Amneal v Almirall 6/4/20 #FederalCircuit answers issue of first impression in generic/pharma IPR appeal. Can Circuit award attorney fees under 35 USC 285 for work on IPR and appeal to Circuit from IPR? Held NO. Sect 285 is limited to “judicial proceedings”; IPRs are not included.
@tanakakohsuke Good news! My publisher tells me that page numbers will be added to the Kindle edition. A team is working on that now. They are not sure how long it will take, but it is in the works. I will keep you posted.
@tanakakohsuke Still waiting for an answer on adding actual page numbers. I hope to have more information soon.
Nice to know that some legal publishers still do print! go.fastcase.com/webmail/427522…
@tanakakohsuke Thanks, I will talk to the publisher and see if they can add page numbers as in the 5th edition.
Detailed table of contents at wklegaledu.com/File%20Library… twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Pleased to announce the publication of the 6th edition of my #patent law hornbook, geared for law students and all others seeking an overview of the field, including those studying for the #patent bar. https://t.co/7Ej6iyhJw0
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) May 29, 2020
Kindle version available at https://t.co/TpmJUr9fm2
Pleased to announce the publication of the 6th edition of my #patent law hornbook, geared for law students and all others seeking an overview of the field, including those studying for the #patent bar. wklegaledu.com/Mueller-Patent… Kindle version available at amazon.com/Janice-M-Muell…
Remdesivir could present a very interesting inventorship battle. washingtonpost.com/business/2020/…
Odyssey v Iancu 5/22 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS EDVa jdgmt for USPTO in APA challenges. 1st of 3 involved rare request for reh'g by Examiner after Bd reversed Exr. But before Bd's final decision, O sued in EDVa under APA, alleging PTO acted ultra vires. Held: no final agency action.
@ChisumOnPatents So this is an end-run around Akamai divided infringement rules?
MCRO v Bandai 5/20 #FederalCircuit again resuscitates MCRO patent! VACATES DCt's SJ 112 invalidity for lack of full scope enablement. Both specific examples relied on were NOT w/i claim scope. Lacking these, DCt's reasoning "too abstract & conclusory" to support SJ of invalidity.
Syngenta (12/18/19): single entity rule doesn't apply to § 271(g). Separate steps by separate entities in China, then product imported: infringement! If right, in domestic case, 271(g) overrides single entity rule for a process that results in a product that can be used or sold.
§ 271(g) says import into U.S. OR sell, use, etc. in U.S. Some authority: applies to purely domestic cases. 20 USPQ2d 1797. Buyer of unpatented product beware! See next tweet.
Does § 271(g) only apply when an unpatented product is made by a patented process outside the U.S. and then imported into the U.S.? Think about it and then see next tweet.
ESIP v Puzhen 5/19/20 #FederalCircuit canNOT review PTAB's institution identification of real parties in interest under 35 USC 312(a)(2). "No principled reason" makes this reviewable in view of SCt's Cuozzo & Thyrv. Court AFFIRMS invalidation for obviousness based on prior art.
LanyardToys v Dolgencorp 5/14 #FederalCircuit gives DCt an A+ for SJ of NO design pat infringement by accused pencil-shape chalk holder. DCt applied design claim construction rules "to a tee" & struck right balance btwn noting fn features & pr art in context of overall similarity
VirnetX v Cisco 5/13/20 #FederalCircuit DENIES PTO's petitions for reh'g en banc & panel reh'g, but more fully explains its panel decision extending Arthrex 10/19 from IPRs to inter partes reexams. PTO Director does not have enough review power to make APJs "inferior officers."
No abuse of discretion by DCt ignoring patentee’s expert declaration at pleadings stage as an attempt to “manufacture a factual dispute.” The patents themselves provided sufficient context to decide the legal question of dedication to the public. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
EaglePharm v SlaybackPharm 5/8/20 #FederalCircuit affirms DDel jdgmt on pleadings NO infringement. Disclosure-dedication bars DOE. Spec unambiguously/repeatedly disclosed unclaimed ethanol as alternative to propylene glycol as “pharm acceptable solvent” in claimed leukemia drug.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) May 8, 2020
EaglePharm v SlaybackPharm 5/8/20 #FederalCircuit affirms DDel jdgmt on pleadings NO infringement. Disclosure-dedication bars DOE. Spec unambiguously/repeatedly disclosed unclaimed ethanol as alternative to propylene glycol as “pharm acceptable solvent” in claimed leukemia drug.
Uber v XOne 5/6/20 #FederalCircuit REVERSES PTAB. KSRaurus strikes again! Bd erred in sustaining patent against IPR 103 challenge. 2 prior art refs identified only 2 well-known, predictable solutions to same "buddy" location transmission problem. Claims = "predictable variation."
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