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 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.
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.
February 21-22, 2019: Houston, TX
August 8-9, 2019: Seattle, WA
New and useful twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Check out this outstanding new #patent law podcast by a former #FederalCircuit law clerk. Intriguing insights and excerpts from oral arguments recordings enhance the case analysis. https://t.co/lByE2mJ8FF
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) July 12, 2019
Check out this outstanding new #patent law podcast by a former #FederalCircuit law clerk. Intriguing insights and excerpts from oral arguments recordings enhance the case analysis. spreaker.com/show/patent-ne…
Samsung v Infobridge 7/12 #FederalCircuit another 102 printed publication case, this vacating Bd in 2 IPRs. Challenged SEPs on high eff video coding H.265 standard. Remand to consider whether PHOSITA could hv reas accessed key reference via link emailed to developers’ listserve.
Quake v Lo 7/10/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS Bd in 3 interferences; 28+ pgs; "fact-specific case." Stanford prof Quake's claims to method using random Massively Parallel Sequencing to determine fetal chromosome abnormality held unpatentable for lack of written description support.
Four precedential patent opinions from the #FederalCircuit today 7/10/19. Vacation is over. Stay tuned.
In re GlobalIP 7/5 #FederalCircuit VACATES Bd decision that broadened reissue claims to vehicle load floor changing "thermoplastic" to "plastic" did not comply w written description reqt. Predictable substitution. Species disclosure may support genus; was it critical? I LIKE THIS
@harryv257 You are correct. Mea culpa. I’m getting too old to state votes from memory!
@MichaelStein16 I don’t think it works that way at the CAFC, at least not post-CJ Markey. The next CJ will be Moore (author of a dissent to denial rehg). We’ll see what happens when she takes the reins.
@Jeffswaterworks @cafc I would not call Judge Lourie patent-hating. He is likely very frustrated but feels bound by Mayo. He’s called multiple times for Congressional action on the 101 mess.
@IAM_magazine Seems unlikely SCOTUS would disavow Mayo (2012) so soon when it’s never admitted that Benson (1972) was wrong. I’d love to be surprised though. SCOTUS appears so wrapped up in IPR nitty-gritty that they don’t want to be bothered (again) w simple questions like 101 eligibility. 😩
@MichaelStein16 Frustrating indeed—Mayo has eliminated patenting medical diagnostics. Maybe this is Circuit’s way of begging the industry to get Congress to act. Chen’s opinion is interesting—Mayo probably contravenes Diehr but Court doesn’t say so. We’re stuck with it.
AthenaDiagnostics v Mayo 7/3/19 #FederalCircuit DENIES rehg en banc by 7-5 vote. Panel (Lourie J.) held Feb. 2019 that med diag patent for neuro disorder was 101 ineligible as law of nature under Mayo. Here, 8 separate opinions (4 concur, 4 dissent). Total ~82 pages of opinions.
Kolcraft v Graco 7/2/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS Bd in rare IPR of design patent on playpen legs; wd hv bn obvious. Kolcraft failed to antedate prior art bcz inventor testimony of prior conception NOT independently corroborated. Inventor declaration plus undated photos NOT enough.
The Current War (2017) #IMDb to be released this October. The battle to control electricity featuring Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla. I’m not sure that this is based on the excellent book “The Last Days of Night” or is an independent project. Anyone know? imdb.com/title/tt214050…
Only 2 seats left open for our unique small-group seminar in #Seattle . 12 CLE credits applied for. Join us for a 2-day crash course on the state of FederalCircuit and SCOTUS #patent law—developments, trends, practice implications. We cover prosecution, IPR, & litigation topics. twitter.com/ChisumOnPatent…
Supreme Court will again dive into inter partes review, this time addressing whether Fed. Cir. can review PTAB time-bar decisions. We assess Dex Media & other patent law issues at Seattle Chisum Academy seminar (8-9 August 2019). Join us! Details: https://t.co/u7gYiZisxH
— Donald S. Chisum (@ChisumOnPatents) June 25, 2019
Elbit v Hughes 6/25 #FederalCircuit upholds jury v infringement of satellite comm patent & 21M damages; subst evid that MPF claim limitations satisfied; E's dmgs expert properly relied on a relevant past Hughes settlement; no review of exceptionality bcz atty fees not quantified
Supreme Court will again dive into inter partes review, this time addressing whether Fed. Cir. can review PTAB time-bar decisions. We assess Dex Media & other patent law issues at Seattle Chisum Academy seminar (8-9 August 2019). Join us! Details: madmimi.com/p/1d439e
UCB v Watson 6/24/19 #FederalCircuit affirms DDel that UCB's pat on dermal patch to deliver Parkinson's drug is DOE infringed; also affirms that second UCB pat on polymorph of drug is invalid under s102(a) "known or used": public use by another before invention date. Rare issue!
#SCOTUS 6/24/19 grants cert in DexMedia v ClicktoCall (the Aug 2018 "en banc footnote" case) re whether §314(d) permits appeal of PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that §315(b)’s time bar did not apply. Case below: scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…
Game&TechCo v Activision 6/21 #FederalCircuit affirms IPR that GAT's claims to method of creating custom gaming "gamvatars" wd hv bn obvious. Bd's BRC of "gamvatar" & "layers" correct. Claims obvious in view of single ref or combo. One ref enough for 103 if obvious to modify it.
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