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.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chisum Patent Academy has postponed its live seminars.
#FedCir also rejects as “meritless” C’s argument that Director delegating time-extension for FWDs in case of joinder to PTAB violates Appointments Clause. No evidence of contrary Congressional intent for Director to so delegate & Director is vested with “broad rulemaking powers.” twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Cywee v Google 2/8 #FedCir affirms 2 IPR rulings that C’s claims unpatentable for obviousness. C’s untimeliness/Due Process arguments “meritless.” Nothing requires that Director review of PTAB institution & FWDs per Arthrex be accomplished within statutory 3-mo & 1-yr deadlines.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) February 8, 2023
Cywee v Google 2/8 #FedCir affirms 2 IPR rulings that C’s claims unpatentable for obviousness. C’s untimeliness/Due Process arguments “meritless.” Nothing requires that Director review of PTAB institution & FWDs per Arthrex be accomplished within statutory 3-mo & 1-yr deadlines.
In re Google 2/1/23 #FedCir mandamuses WDTex (Albright J) to xfer venue to NDCal, “clearly” the “center of gravity” here. DCt erred on multiple xfer factors. Jawbone’s earbud invention & G’s accused device were developed in NDCal. J rented office in Waco TX only 1 mo before suit.
A new NYTimes article criticizes big pharma for "gaming" the patent system, with particular focus on AbbVie's Humira: nytimes.com/2023/01/28/bus… Are reverse settlements of litigation (that antitrust law doesn't seem to prevent) as much at fault here as patent evergreening practice?
PMC v Apple 1/20 #FedCir 2-1 affirms EDTx: P's patent unenforceable for prosecution laches. Case "very similar" & "more egregious" than Hyatt. P filed 328 GATT-bubble apps. Unreasonable delay despite Consolidation Agrmt w/ PTO. Dissent: A didn't develop accused prod until after.
This is a good teaching case on patent claim interpretation and satisfying the definiteness requirement, authored by #FedCir Judge Chen. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Grace v Chandler 1/12 #FedCir resuscitates G's oil drilling viscometer patent. "Enlarged chamber" NOT indefinite. Although not term of art & not explicitly defined, intrinsic evidence -> "large enough" to do recited fn: avoid co-mingling 2 fluids. SDTx erred in using dictionary.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) January 12, 2023
Grace v Chandler 1/12 #FedCir resuscitates G's oil drilling viscometer patent. "Enlarged chamber" NOT indefinite. Although not term of art & not explicitly defined, intrinsic evidence -> "large enough" to do recited fn: avoid co-mingling 2 fluids. SDTx erred in using dictionary.
Instead, defendant (here TP-Link) must show that patentee “could have brought suit” in preferred venue (here CDCal) independent of def’s consent. FRCP 1404 fairness/convenience standard applies, not defendant’s unilateral wish. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
In re Stingray 1/10 #FedCir grants mandamus to resolve deep DCt split, holding that defendant (here, foreign corp sued in EDTx) canNOT defeat personal jurisdiction under FRCP 4(k)(2) by unilaterally consenting post-suit to be sued in a different, preferred district (here, CDCal).
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) January 10, 2023
In re Stingray 1/10 #FedCir grants mandamus to resolve deep DCt split, holding that defendant (here, foreign corp sued in EDTx) canNOT defeat personal jurisdiction under FRCP 4(k)(2) by unilaterally consenting post-suit to be sued in a different, preferred district (here, CDCal).
In re Google 1/9/23 #FedCir vacates PTO ex parte determination that search query filtering method claims wd hv bn obvious. PTAB didn’t explain how to modify prior art. “Squint as we may, we do not see the justifications invoked by the PTO on appeal reflected in the record below.”
Dionex v Agilent 1/6/23 #FedCir affirms interference priority to jr pty A. A's spec supports Bd's BRC of claims D copied. Prior actual RTP testimony by A inventor corroborated by 2 colleagues witnessing successful prototype. No negative infer from lack of A co-inventor testimony.
MFA v Alaska Airlines 12/29 #FedCir 2-1 denies interlocutory appeal of protective order that denied M’s in-house counsel access to A’s proprietary source code. M can hire outside counsel or experts. Dispute can be reviewed in final appeal. Collateral order exception is N/A here.
#FedCir (Lourie J) also affirms DCt’s judgment in ANDA litigation that Genentech’s Liver Function Test (LFT) patents would have been obvious. Newman J dissents without opinion. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Genetech v Sandoz 12/22 #FedCir 2-1 affirms no direct infringement of G’s drug-drug interaction (DDI) pats req’g IPF lung trmt with both pirfenidone & fluvoxamine. DCt properly considered S’s proposed label (give both) AND physician testimony re past practice (do not give both).
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) December 22, 2022
Genetech v Sandoz 12/22 #FedCir 2-1 affirms no direct infringement of G’s drug-drug interaction (DDI) pats req’g IPF lung trmt with both pirfenidone & fluvoxamine. DCt properly considered S’s proposed label (give both) AND physician testimony re past practice (do not give both).
Mosaic v Ridge 12/20 #FedCir reverses DCt’s SJ of anticipation invalidity of R’s patent (asserted in counterclaim). Material fact q’s re whether M’s product was s102(b) on sale prior art. Documentary corroboration by M product’s inventor requires jury to assess his credibility.
Plastipak v PremiumWaters 12/19: in rare inventorship decision, #FedCir reverses DCt’s SJ of s102(f)(preAIA) invalidity of 9 pat’s. Many material fact q’s for jury re non-joined F’s contribution to plastic bottle design. Mere contributing state of art isn’t sharing in conception.
Adasa v AveryDennison 12/16 #FedCir affirms D.Or.’s SJ that claim to a hardware-based RFID serial number data structure IS s101 patent-eligible; enables technological improvements to RFID tag commissioning. BUT remands for trial on 102/103 validity in view of prior art: fact q’s.
Google v Hammond 12/8/22 #FedCir reverses PTAB in part. Collateral estoppel applies to render obvious 2 claims of H’s ‘816 patent. Claims of H’s previously invalidated related ‘483 pat (same spec) were identical as to issues of patentability, despite slightly different language.
TreeHouse v ValveCorp 11/30 #FedCir affirms DCt’s striking patentee expert testimony that wrongly relied on broader “plain & ordinary meaning” of “character-enabled network sites,” rather than parties’ requested construction, which DCt had adopted. SJ of no infringement affirmed.
Thus #FedCir makes precedential its conclusion in VirnetX (2019 non-prec). Patentee can’t tailor/“shapeshift” claim meaning through argument in IPR; instead we have amendment. NB: disclaimer made in IPR doesn’t bind that PTAB, but IS binding in *later* proceedings (PTO or DCt). twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Cupp v Trend 11/16 #FedCir affirms s103 unpatentability of C’s 3 patents. “Security system processor” is “different” from phone processor but need not be “remote” (could be in single device). *New precedent*: C’s contrary disclaimer in the IPR did not bind PTAB; properly ignored.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) November 16, 2022
Read Chisum’s July 2022 article, “Fifty Years of Patent Law: The Top Ten Developments,” here.
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.
©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