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.
In re Boloro Global 7/7 #FederalCircuit vacate/remands PTAB decision in ex parte prosecution appeal. "Director having conceded that the APJ’s appointments were unconstitutional, we see no principled reason to depart here from the resulting remedy applied in Arthrex and VirnetX."
Polls are in the news. Here's one. Proposition: overall, experience has shown that inter partes review has reduced the cost of resolving patent disputes and increased certainty
Genentech v Amgen 7/6/20 #FederalCircuit holds A’s 180-day notice to market its FDA-approved biosimilar of G’s cancer biologic AVASTIN was valid notice under 42 USC 262. A’s 2 amendments to change label & add mfg facility did not change nature of A’s biological product. No TRO.
ElecComm'n v ShoppersChoice 7/1 #FederalCircuit holds Fl DCt abused discretion by denying s285 atty fees. EC's patent =101 uneligible. Pattern of litigation abuse by filing 150+ suits & sending letters for nuisance-value settlements w/o any intent to test infringement or validity
B/E Aerospace v C&DZodiac 6/26/20 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS IPR that claims to aircraft bath walls w recesses wd hv bn obvious. "Strong case" to modify predictable application of known technology. "Simple" tech. Bd properly relied on expert test & evidence-supported "common sense."
Firebug v StrideRite 6/25/20 #FederalCircuit affirms PTAB IPRs that claims in 2 patents on illuminated kids' shoes wd hv bn obvious. Useful compare/contrast tutorial on why one preamble was limiting but other was not (preamble = merely intended purpose). But Bd's error harmless.
In re PersonalWeb 6/17 #FederalCircuit affirms NDCal dismissal of PW's 8 suits/5 "True Name" patents against AmazonS3 customers. PW's prior suit against AmS3 dismissed w prejudice. Claim preclusion here: same accused functionality. Kessler doctrine/trade right also shields AmS3.
@tanakakohsuke From my publisher today: “the page numbering has been fixed and new downloads will have the corrected page numbering.” I do hope you won’t have to buy the Kindle editions again to get the page numbering. Amazon should allow updates of already-purchased copies!
Munchkin v LuvNCare 6/8/20 #FederalCircuit reverses grant of atty fees in pat/TM/TD case M dismissed after IPR cancelled its patent on cup. LNC's motion lacked enough facts & analysis to establish M's infringement claims were so substantively meritless as to make case exceptional
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.
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