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.
@saveinventors Yes, it seems like a very fine/subjective line. But in this case, some of their “general ideas” also appeared in the prior art, which didn’t help.
This is a useful case focusing inter alia on obligation to assign "intellectual property" during employment and temporal aspects of inventorship; Circuit distinguishes its earlier decisions in Israel Bio-Engineering; FilmTec; and Stanford. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
REJECTS arg that "a person’s work, just because it might one day turn out to contribute significantly to a later patentable invention and make the person a co-inventor, is itself protectible intellectual property before the patentable invention is made." Only "possible" IP. https://t.co/jJDGAK7rBF
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) April 29, 2021
REJECTS arg that "a person’s work, just because it might one day turn out to contribute significantly to a later patentable invention and make the person a co-inventor, is itself protectible intellectual property before the patentable invention is made." Only "possible" IP. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
BioRad Labs v ITC 4/29/21 #FederalCircuit affirms 337 violation. Rejects B's defense of co-ownership of asserted 10X microfluidic patents. Named inventors had general "ideas" when earlier employed by B, "possible intellectual property," but conception was AFTER employment with B.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) April 29, 2021
BioRad Labs v ITC 4/29/21 #FederalCircuit affirms 337 violation. Rejects B's defense of co-ownership of asserted 10X microfluidic patents. Named inventors had general "ideas" when earlier employed by B, "possible intellectual property," but conception was AFTER employment with B.
@SterneKessler Agreed. Their tone strikes me as, at least in part, a show of respect for the Federal Circuit (Judge Lourie authored Diamond Scientific). The Justices sound inclined to go with the DOJ’s proposal—keep assignor estoppel, with limitations.
Mojave v Crocs 4/21/21 #FederalCircuit grants FRAP 43b motion to substitute Mojave for bankrupt USADawgs as successor-in-interest in IPReexam of Crocs' iconic clog design patent. The right transferred as part of bankruptcy xfer of past infringement liability. O'Malley J dissents.
Raytheon v GE 4/16 #FederalCircuit reverses IPR s103 determination. Single prior art ref (1987 NASA memo) was not enabling. POSA could not physically make ref's turbine engine to achieve claimed power density. Ref contemplated unachievable properties using non-existing materials.
And likely future s315(e) estoppel of Apple to argue obviousness of Q's 2 patents does not confer standing. A's harm "particularly suspect" bcz no evidence of likely infringmnt after license expires. Circuit refuses to take judicial notice that A will sell smartphones in future.
Apple v Qualcomm 4/7 #FederalCircuit holds A has no Art III standing to appeal 2 lost IPRs. Q & A settled parallel litigation; 6-yr license; dismiss w/ prejudice. A's ongoing royalty obligations NOT injury in fact, unlike Medimmune. Possible infringmt post-license too speculative
Wi-Lan v Sharp 4/6 #FederalCircuit affirms SJ no infringement of W's video patent bcz source code from 3d pty chip mfrs not admissible as business record exception to hearsay FRE803(6). Declarants not available for trial; code not trustworthy. Also W can't use FRE703 as backdoor.
Did SCOTUS today in Google v. Oracle really mean to say that patents "protect novel and useful ideas"? See PDF 13, supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
See perkinscoie.com/en/professiona… twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Outstanding news! CNN reports that President Biden has “nominated Tiffany Cunningham, a patent litigator in Chicago, to the Federal Circuit Appeals Court. She would be the first Black woman to serve on that court.”
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) March 30, 2021
Outstanding news! CNN reports that President Biden has “nominated Tiffany Cunningham, a patent litigator in Chicago, to the Federal Circuit Appeals Court. She would be the first Black woman to serve on that court.”
Reyna, J. provides apt metaphor for Alice step 2: it "is like a lifeline: it can rescue and save a claim that has been deemed, at step one, directed to non-statutory subject matter." But claim 1 here NOT saved in step 2. No inventive concept; additional limitations are WURC. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
InReBdTrusteesStanford 3/25/21 #FederalCircuit holds computerized method of inferring haplotype phase in group of *unrelated* persons is patent-ineligible abstract idea. Same result for Stanford as 2 weeks prior in No. 2020-1012. "Greater computational efficiency" arg forfeited.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) March 25, 2021
InReBdTrusteesStanford 3/25/21 #FederalCircuit holds computerized method of inferring haplotype phase in group of *unrelated* persons is patent-ineligible abstract idea. Same result for Stanford as 2 weeks prior in No. 2020-1012. "Greater computational efficiency" arg forfeited.
From today's 3/17 non-precedential #FederalCircuit opinion, In re Hu, FN2: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." W. Shakespeare, HAMLET. PTO properly rejected "quantum entanglement" claims that "strain scientific principles."
Mylan v Janssen 3/12 #FederalCircuit holds per §314(d) no direct appeal exists from Director's *denial* of IPR institution (& no mandamus in this case), although decisions granting institution may be reviewable (to a limited extent) on direct appeal from a final written decision.
InReBdTrusteesStanfordU 3/11 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS PTO ex parte rejn; method of resolving haplotype phase (which parent gave gene) = abstract math calculation, NOT s101 eligible. No specialized computer req'd; "hard to imagine" a more generic recitation of hardware limitations.
Uniloc2017 v Facebook 3/9/21 #FederalCircuit CAN review PTAB's s315(e) post-institution estoppel determination; not barred by 314(d) "No Appeal." Same reasoning as Credit Acceptance (2017, CBM). On merits, no estoppel; LG Elecs did not control FB; LG is not a privy or RPI to FB.
Edgewell v Munchkin 3/9 #FederalCircuit awards big win to Diaper Genie maker Edgewell, reversing DCt’s SJ of no infringe. Error to apply vitiation to bar DOE liability. Claimed “annular cover” of diaper cassette not limited to “binary choice” of single- vs multi-part structures.
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