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].
Just looked up definition of “contumacious” = “stubbornly or willfully disobedient to authority.” twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Raniere v Microsoft #FederalCircuit 4/18/18 affirms NDTex award sec 285 atty fees to def’s (300K to AT&T, 144K to MS). Dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing made def’s prevailing parties. Patentee litigated w/ “a clear history of delay and contumacious conduct.”
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) April 18, 2018
Raniere v Microsoft #FederalCircuit 4/18/18 affirms NDTex award sec 285 atty fees to def’s (300K to AT&T, 144K to MS). Dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing made def’s prevailing parties. Patentee litigated w/ “a clear history of delay and contumacious conduct.”
Apator v Kamstrup 4/17/18 FedCir affirms IPR decision claim anticipated. Patentee failed to corroborate evidence needed to swear behind reference having 18-day earlier priority date. Inv. had only his own emails and drawings, not “witnessed” by anyone else. Q of fact; defer to Bd
Analysis by @SCOTUSblog of yesterday’s argument in #WesternGeco: shar.es/1L9bHy
Good insights re the #FederalCircuit Vanda 101 decision (majority held claim did not recite law of nature and distinguished Mayo) by @WarrenWoessner at @SLWIP , a mentor of mine. patents4life.com/2018/04/federa…
That’s #FederalCircuit not #CAFC twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Sumitomo v Emcare #CAFC 4/16/18 affirms DNJ in HatchWax case. Patent covering API in LATUDA drug for schizophrenia is infringed. Nice tutorial on stereochemistry. Claim covered at least the enantiomer depicted in claim. Do not limit to racemic mix’s. Intrinsic evid. controlled.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) April 16, 2018
Sumitomo v Emcare #CAFC 4/16/18 affirms DNJ in HatchWax case. Patent covering API in LATUDA drug for schizophrenia is infringed. Nice tutorial on stereochemistry. Claim covered at least the enantiomer depicted in claim. Do not limit to racemic mix’s. Intrinsic evid. controlled.
@MichaelStein16 Thanks for seeing the importance of the 101/law of nature issue here. We don’t get to the meat of it until pages 30-32. J. Lourie’s effort to distinguish Mayo is powerful. Note to self—always read dissent first to see what’s really at stake. And before tweeting!
If inventor’s gender is truly impacting allowance rates, that’s very troubling. Hope @uspto will respond to this. Note that study does not seem to consider role of patent attorney. Lay inventor is often largely unaware/misguided re a patent’s prosecution. insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-d…
Vanda v WestWard 4/13/18 first #FederalCircuit precedentail in a while! Hatch-Waxman jurisdiction though ANDA filed before patent issued. Lourie: valid and inducing infringement via label. CJ Prost dissents.
In re Coutts FedCir 4/6/18 NON-precedential: what reference patent inventor knew or didn’t know is not dispositive. Obviousness is measured by objective view of PHOSITA. 103 Rejection affirmed.
The #FederalCircuit has not issued a precedential patent decision since 3/27 (8 business days ago). I'm getting nervous! Seeing lots of Rule 36's.
Federal Circuit today: four affirmances without opinions (Rule 36), 2 from district courts, 2 from PTO).
Raytheon v Sony 4/2/18 #FederalCircuit NON-precedential; ct affirms IPR determination claims obvious. Inter alia patentee failed to antedate a reference; ct agrees w/ Bd that the alleged corroborating evidence (corporate report) contradicted inventor’s testimony of earlier RTP.
Amazing, intense play!
Arista v Cisco #FederalCircuit 3/28/18 NONprecedential. Court (Taranto, J.) again finds PTAB did not adequately explain its reasoning in IPR determination that claims re “multi-bridge LAN aggregation” were nonobvious. This time, Circuit remands rather than reverses. That's good.
Today's nonprecedential order by #Federalcircuit in Bosch v. Iancu (12/22/17) is the second errata deleting cite to 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This time it's removed from line 32 rather than line 29 on page 22. I think the earlier errata, referring to line 29, was itself erroneous. :) twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Okay, so that's what the court did not do in Aqua Prods. I'm still not exactly sure what it did do :( https://t.co/a9QD25xpwo
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) March 15, 2018
#FederalCircuit has this copyright case because when Oracle sued Google in 2010, it alleged copyright infringement of Java by Android o/s and also alleged that Android infringed 7 Oracle patents. Jury found no patent infringement. CAFC keeps jurisdiction under 28 USC 1295(a)(1). twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Oracle v Google 3/27/18 rare Federal Circuit copyright decision; extensive amici participation; Circuit concludes that Google’s use of Java
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) March 27, 2018
API packages was NOT fair use. Circuit reverses
the NDCal decisions denying Oracle’s motions for
JMOL, and remands for a trial on damages.
In re Brandt #FederalCircuit 3/27/18 tutorial from Judge Reyna on prima facie case as procedural burden-shifting tool available to USPTO examiner in "initial stage of examination." [Perhaps NOT applicable in validity litigation of issued patents?]
![test Twitter Media - In re Brandt #FederalCircuit 3/27/18 tutorial from Judge Reyna on prima facie case as procedural burden-shifting tool available to USPTO examiner in "initial stage of examination." [Perhaps NOT applicable in validity litigation of issued patents?] https://t.co/Ahak3AnJyc](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZUQ1roWAAAvdGp.jpg)
@MichaelStein16 Indeed!
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