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.
RainComputing v Samsung 3/2 #FederalCircuit reverses DCt; R's patent invalid. "User identification module"=112/6 MPF term. "Computer readable media" or "storage devices" are not sufficient structure for "control access" function; just gen purpose computer. No algorithm provided.
@GazEtc @PerryECooper Thanks Jeff; that makes more sense. Did you see this one, posted today: cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…
Bayer v Baxalta 3/1 #FederalCircuit 37-pager upholds $155M jury v (+ supp dmgs) on hemophilia drug. Claim interp "close" but no disclaimer. Full scope enabled. Proper for jury to pick ~18% royalty rate within expert's range. JMOL no willful infringmt was proper because no intent.
@PerryECooper Even the best make mistakes. But one wonders about the internal review procedures at the #FederalCircuit. It's hard to believe that a precedential opinion was reviewed by (at least) the chambers of eleven other judges before publication and no one caught that.
@JeffBVockrodt Merriam Webster dictionary lists the adjective “examinational” (see merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exa…), but I like “examinatory” (see merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exa…). Apparently “examinatorial” is more common than “examinatory.” The OED would be a better source to consult (I mean, examine 😉).
Dyk J dissents.: “[M]ajority’s holding is incorrect because these proceedings are examinational (or inquisitorial) rather than adjudicatory, do not include court-like adjudicatory procedures, and do not satisfy the requirements of B & B Hardware,” 575 US 138 (2015), to apply CE. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Synqor v Vicor 2/22/21 #FederalCircuit holds 2-1 common law collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) applies to inter partes reexam under the B&B Hardware test & in this case. IPReexams of 2 other S family patents found no motivation to combine same 2 references. Applies here also.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) February 22, 2021
Synqor v Vicor 2/22/21 #FederalCircuit holds 2-1 common law collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) applies to inter partes reexam under the B&B Hardware test & in this case. IPReexams of 2 other S family patents found no motivation to combine same 2 references. Applies here also.
JohnBeanTech v MorrisAssoc 2/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS DCt's SJ for M of s252 equitable intervening rights against JB's reexamined patent. First impression: statute's "protection of investments" M made pre-reexam NOT limited to recovery of profits. JB's 11 yr silence=bad faith.
Canfield v Melanoscan 2/28/21 #FederalCircuit (Newman J) REVERSES Bd in IPR; independent claims 1 & 51 of M's skin imager patent wd hv been obvious. Bd read claims too narrowly re patient's location. KSR: combo of known elements (as shown here in refs) led to predictable results.
Synchronoss v Dropbox 2/12 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS that claims to data synch w multi devices are 112/2 indefinite. 1st patent's claims "nonsensical" & contain "impossibility"; ct will not rewrite. "User identifier module" in 2d patent is 112/6 MPF but lacks any corresp structure.
Amgen v Sanofi 2/11 #FederalCircuit affirms JMOL of non-enablement of antibody claims in IMPORTANT biotech case. Double-functional limitations of these "indisputably broad" claims pose "high hurdles"; full scope not enabled. Facts closer to Enzo, Wyeth, and Idenix than to Wands.
InfinityComp v OkiData 2/10 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS DCt that claim-recited "passive link" between fax machine & computer is 112/1 indefinite. "Passive link" introduced during prosecution for novelty, but then patentee took position of "flat contradiction" re its meaning in reexam
Chudik v Hirshfeld 2/8 #FederalCircuit affirms EDVa in patent term adjustment dispute. Subsect C delay requires a reversal decision by PTAB or reviewing court. Here: continued examination, appeal filed, new rejection &prosecution reopened, 4x, then allowance. No PTA C-type delay.
M&K Holdings v Samsung 2/1/21, second issue: #FederalCircuit VACATES PTAB holding that claim 3 was anticipated. S's IPR petition raised only obviousness; patentee not put on notice of anticipation ground; Board "deviated impermissibly" and "marked[ly]" from S's invalidity theory. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
M&K Holdings v Samsung 2/1/21 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS PTAB prior art call; "wealth of evidence" that 2 references, orally presented at JCT-VC video coding SSO meeting & uploaded as "input documents" to JCT website, searchable for that particular meeting, WERE publicly accessible.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) February 1, 2021
M&K Holdings v Samsung 2/1/21 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS PTAB prior art call; "wealth of evidence" that 2 references, orally presented at JCT-VC video coding SSO meeting & uploaded as "input documents" to JCT website, searchable for that particular meeting, WERE publicly accessible.
Now available in hard copy and digital formats from @Fastcase, Mueller on Patent Law is a comprehensive yet accessible two-volume legal treatise for patent practitioners. For ordering information, see lnkd.in/dryVZnX.
SIMO v UCloudlink 1/5/20 #FederalCircuit reverses DCt & wipes out $8.2M jury v for SIMO. DCt erred in construing preamble language too broadly. FedCir holds that “plurality of” requires at least two of each listed item in disputed phrase, including “non-local calls database.”
GE v Raytheon 12/23/20 #FederalCircuit vacates PTAB IPR sustaining R's 2-stage high-P turbine pat. Holds: 1) GE has standing to appeal; its acts create "substantial risk of infringement"; 2) Bd erred bcz prior art 1-stage does NOT "teach away"; motivation to combine DOES exist.
Caterpillar v ITC 12/18 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS ITC that C’s asphalt milling pat invalid under preAIA 102(b) on sale bar. Sale WAS “in this country,” although title transferred in Italy. Activity was “directed to” the US. Buyer has US address. Sale was for export to US. VAT tax.
Sionyx v. Hamamatsu 12/7 #FederalCircuit sustains all aspects of jury v for S. DCt erred re inventorship of Disputed Foreign Pats. S = sole owner bcz H breached NDA. DCt had jurisdn to compel party H to assign foreign pats to S. DCt is NOT compelling foreign pat offices to act.
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