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.
Andra v VictoriasSecret 8/3 #FedCir holds 3 related VS corporate defs (Non-Stores) running website & branding do NOT have regular & established place business for EDTx venue, tho VS Store does. Store employees NOT agents of Non-Stores; do their own hiring/firing. See Google 2020.
Omni SciMed v Apple 8/2 #FedCir holds 2-1 that inventions “shall be the property” of university was a “promise of a potential future assignment,” NOT a present automatic transfer of title. Non-active verb. See Arachnid (1991). So professor’s spin-off company has standing to sue.
Qualcomm v Intel 7/27/21 #FedCir vacates 6 PTAB IPR obviousness FWDs. Board did not give patentee Q notice/opportunity to respond to its elimination of parties' agreed-upon interpretation that power tracker claims required increased bandwidth, violating Q's APA procedural rights.
Chemours v Daikin 7/22 #FedCir (Reyna) reverses PTAB on obviousness. Prior art taught away (Dyk dissents). Bd's modification would wrongly "alter[] the inventive concept." Commercial success can be sales without market share data. The IPR'd patent canNOT act as a blocking patent.
Roberts in Arthrex: “At this stage," i.e. on appeal from an IPR decision, "the Director can intervene before the court to defend or disavow the Board’s decision. §143.” 143 does not use "defend" or "disavow." Comments? Some cases: Director requests remand.
@ChisumOnPatents Justice Kagan seems to take an interest in the nuts & bolts of patent cases. Not afraid to get into the weeds a bit.
Opinions in Minerva refer to: inequitable conduct, inventor’s oath, continuation applications, patents as personal property, validity as a “factual and legal inquiry”, misuse, equitable estoppel, practicing the prior art, res judicata, law of case, claim construction, assignments
Going through SCOTUS Minerva (assignor estoppel), preparing inserts for Supreme Court Guide topical outline, which is my standard procedure. More entries than any case I can remember!!!! For topics, see next tweet.
DCt erred in dismissing as to 2 of BotM8's gaming patents, "demand[ing] too much" at pleading stage; B need not prove case. Complaint plausibly alleged accused PlayStn4 met claimed timing reqt for fault inspection program w/ "specific factual allegations." Nothing more required. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Bot M8 v Sony 7/13/21 #FedCir important decision on pleading patent infringement. To the extent DCts have adopted "a blanket element-by-element pleading standard," "that approach is unsupported and goes beyond the standard the Supreme Court articulated in Iqbal and Twombly."
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) July 13, 2021
Bot M8 v Sony 7/13/21 #FedCir important decision on pleading patent infringement. To the extent DCts have adopted "a blanket element-by-element pleading standard," "that approach is unsupported and goes beyond the standard the Supreme Court articulated in Iqbal and Twombly."
In working on Ch. 5 revision, I notice considerable panel tension on what triggers a presumption of nexus between a commercially successful product and a patent claim. Compare Fox Factory (944 F.3d 1366) and WBIP (829 F.3d 1317).
#SCOTUS (Kagan J) gave us some useful definitions in Minerva v Hologic (6/29/21). Prior art ="the set of earlier inventions (and other information) used to decide whether the specified invention is novel and non-obvious enough to merit a patent." NB: SCOTUS does NOT include s101.
Revising Chisum on Patents: a continuous rolling project: Recently completed: Rel. 179 (Ch. 2 inventorship and Ch. 7 (enablement, written description); Rel. 180 (Ch. 8 (claims). Underway: Ch. 5 (obviousness). A Ch.1 revision (eligible subject matter) every year (sad).
In re Samsung 6/30 #FedCir mandamus's WDTex (Albright J) to transfer to NDCal, where case "might hv been brought" per s1404(a). Co-P Ikorongo Texas was made assignee for Texas only, a "plainly recent, ephemeral, and artificial" presence. Bald attempt to manipulate venue rejected.
@ChisumOnPatents Indeed. IMO anything employee says in her invention disclosure would be the baseline for comparison, even if no claims at that point.
SCOTUS Minerva on estoppel. Says employee signing assignment. agreement makes no implicit representation of invention's patentability ("validity") and therefore no estoppel. What if employee fills out an invention disclosure form describing "invention"?
@ChisumOnPatents is practical result of the new Minerva v Hologic test that assignor estoppel defense can no longer be asserted in case of employed inventor who assigned all future IP rights when first hired (i.e., before there was any patent application with any claims)?
Loving that both the #SCOTUS majority and principal dissenting opinions in today's #patent decision, Minerva v. Hologic, No. 20-440, were authored by women Justices (Kagan and Barrett). supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Dissent by Barrett J is our first look at her #patent views: 1952 Act did not incorporate assignor estoppel. Patents became personal property, unlike land (Westinghouse's basis). Doctrine "in a confused state by 1952," not meeting high bar to incorporate common law into statute. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Judgment below is vacated and case remanded to address what #FedCir erroneously thought irrelevant: "whether [plaintiff/patentee] Hologic’s new claim[s are] materially broader than the ones [inventor] Truckai assigned." https://t.co/pBcmWY1431
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 29, 2021
Judgment below is vacated and case remanded to address what #FedCir erroneously thought irrelevant: "whether [plaintiff/patentee] Hologic’s new claim[s are] materially broader than the ones [inventor] Truckai assigned." twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
If claims now "materially broader" than when assigned, "the assignor did not warrant to the new claims’ validity. And if he made no such representation, then he can challenge the new claims in litigation: Because there is no inconsistency in his positions, there is no estoppel." https://t.co/5qGdBZH9my
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 29, 2021
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