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.
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.
March 5-6, 2018: Houston, TX [Update 2/18/18: one seat left; our only seminar for 2018].
Blackbird Tech v ELB Elecs #FederalCircuit 7/16 panel majority reverses DCT on construction of “attachment surface” in lighting fixture. Plain language. DCt erred in reading in that surface must attach to ballast cover. Reyna dissent: retrofit function implicitly reqs attachment.
Interesting uptick (two) in issued FedCir cases re pre-AIA "is it printed publication prior art?," both finding sufficient public accessibility, after SCT cert grant 6/25 in Helsinn v Teva (is it prior art under AIA when sale was public but invention details kept confidential?) twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Not persuasive that 2001 FedReg only in hard copy and 68K pages. Skilled artisan would hv ben motivated to seek out FDA meeting notices regarding drug abuse. Need not show actual receipt by specific persons. Matls disseminated substantial time w no expectation of confidentiality. https://t.co/Eau7svFT4W
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) July 14, 2018
Not persuasive that 2001 FedReg only in hard copy and 68K pages. Skilled artisan would hv ben motivated to seek out FDA meeting notices regarding drug abuse. Need not show actual receipt by specific persons. Matls disseminated substantial time w no expectation of confidentiality. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Jazz Pharm v Amneal #FederalCircuit 7/13 2d recent decision holding info sufficiently publicly accessible -> 102(b) printed publication. FedReg notice re FDA drug approval mtg open to public. Widely accessible on FDA site >2 mos. pre-critical date. Numerous backgrd matls linked.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) July 14, 2018
Jazz Pharm v Amneal #FederalCircuit 7/13 2d recent decision holding info sufficiently publicly accessible -> 102(b) printed publication. FedReg notice re FDA drug approval mtg open to public. Widely accessible on FDA site >2 mos. pre-critical date. Numerous backgrd matls linked.
Polara v Campbell #FederalCircuit 7/11/18 agrees w/ jury/DCT experimental use negated 102(b) public use but “close q”; testing safety & durability a la City of Elizabeth; agrees re willfulness (D’s opinion lacking); but DCt did not explain 2.5X enhancement. Vacates on damages.
@JohnnyDrag When the Circuit “modifies” an opinion, wouldn’t it be lovely if they italicized the changed portions like a reissue, so the reader could easily and quickly identify exactly what was changed?
TAOS v Intersil #FederalCircuit 7/9/18 modified 50-pg versn of May opinion in response to Patentee petition rehg en banc. Ct modified Part III.A on extraterritoriality issue. 98.8% of accused items not within 271(a) direct infringement. Alleged sales to Apple not proved in USA.
Power Integrations v Fairchild #FederalCircuit 7/3/18 vacating $140M jury damages award based on entire market value rule, a "demanding alternative to our general rule of apportionment." PI failed to show only frequency reduction drove consumer demand. Other "valuable features."
Adidas v Nike 7/2/18 #FederalCircuit motion panel remands IPR to Board in light of SAS. Bd must consider all grounds as well as all claims. Here Bd instituted on all claims but decided only one of two grounds. Per SAS, Bd must decide all grounds raised in instituted petition.
Impax v Lannett #FederalCircuit 6/28 affirms Hatch-Waxman DCT determination claims to anti-migraine nasal spray formulation NOT obvious. Prior art (metabolite) taught away. No reasonable expectation of success. Licensing 2d consideration. Nexus. Close case but defer to DCt FofF.
Justice Kennedy announces retirement from SCOTUS
Strong argument: statute's language assumes "public use" and "on sale", as always interpreted, are examples of available to the public and then adds that there may be other examples. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Big news--SCOTUS will review the #FederalCircuit's decision in Helsinn v. Teva, on the interpretation of section 102(b) as amended by the AIA. Let's hope for some much-needed clarification of Congress's unclear and ambiguous statutory drafting.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 25, 2018
Here is the Question Presented: "Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention." twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Big news--SCOTUS will review the #FederalCircuit's decision in Helsinn v. Teva, on the interpretation of section 102(b) as amended by the AIA. Let's hope for some much-needed clarification of Congress's unclear and ambiguous statutory drafting.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 25, 2018
Big news--SCOTUS will review the #FederalCircuit's decision in Helsinn v. Teva, on the interpretation of section 102(b) as amended by the AIA. Let's hope for some much-needed clarification of Congress's unclear and ambiguous statutory drafting.
Going through recent cases on claim construction in preparing a revision of Chisum, Patent Law Digest. Difference between Phillips standard and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation: fuzzy. So, I'm now a fan of PTO proposal to abolish latter for IPRs. Occam's Razor.
Aren’t the claims in #WesternGeco the same ones thereafter held unpatentable in an IPR (affirmed by Circuit)? Either I’m wrong on that or it’s not relevant because court damages award came first and was a final judgment.
The goal is to put patentee in condition as if infringement had not occured. That recovery can include lost profits, and that can include foreign lost profits when 271(f)(2) infringement is proved. NB: Court does not reach how proximate cause could limit recovery in other cases. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Opinion at https://t.co/1QHpBKE0aU https://t.co/U3jGpNn9Aj
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 22, 2018
@HolbrookPatents Yes, because FedCir did not address f(1). But shouldn't the outcome be the same under the Supreme Court's reasoning, whenever that case arises?
Opinion at supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf… twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
SCOTUS has issued its 7-2 decision in WesternGeco, holding that sections 271 with 284 allow a patentee to recover for lost foreign profits. This decision will surely be a boon to U.S. patent-holders engaging in international commerce.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) June 22, 2018
SCOTUS has issued its 7-2 decision in WesternGeco, holding that sections 271 with 284 allow a patentee to recover for lost foreign profits. This decision will surely be a boon to U.S. patent-holders engaging in international commerce.
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.
Professor John Witherspoon’s moving tribute to Judge Giles Rich, presented to the Giles Sutherland Rich American Inn of Court on January 18, 2017, is 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