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.
O’Malley J dissents: district court failed to distinguish between therapeutic and clinical efficacy. Phase III clinical trial rigor is not required for therapeutic efficacy, which is what’s claimed here.
Biogen v Mylan 11/30 #FedCir 2-1 affirms invalidation of Biogen @Tecfidera patent claiming MS treatment by administering DMF at specific 480mg/day dosage. As of 2007 filing date, B not in possession of “therapeutically effective” dosage in 2011 claims. B’s expert not credible.
@patentlyo Grasshopper, I feel your pain. But isn't Graham v. Deere an improvement over the previous test--whether the invention involved invention?
This looks like a great teaching case; patent titans clashing over a “classic” (ie, priority-policing) written description of the invention dispute.
Linn J dissents-in-part: Majority applies an overly demanding standard for written description for ranges, and fails to follow Circuit's precedent in In re Wertheim (CCPA 1976) and NalpropionPharm v. Actavis (Fed Cir 2019).
IndiviorUK v DrReddys 11/24 #FedCir important written description decision (Lourie J). Claim-recited range "about 40 to about 60" is NOT supported by parent's disclosures of 48.2, 58.6, and "at least 25." Claims don't get 2009 parent's date. But "about 48.2" in cl 8 IS supported.
@JohnnyDrag @patentlyo @ChisumOnPatents Agreed, and at least the title of s102(a) (AIA) still includes the phrase "prior art."
RohmUSA v MaxPower 11/12 #FedCir affirms NDCal order dismissing R's DJ action challenging 4 MP patents & compelling arbitration. Tech licensing agrmt btwn parent RohmJAPAN & MP req's arbitration for this international dispute. Some of R's contrary arg's "border on the frivolous."
Newman J dissents. “[A] licensee always has standing to challenge validity of the licensed patent”; the AIA did not abrogate that right, established by Lear (US 1969). “There is no qualification as to whether the appellant is a licensee.”
Apple v Qualcomm 11/10 #FedCir dismisses appeal from IPRs for lack of Art. III standing. Parties have settled/licensed. “Identical operative facts” w/ Apple I (2021); court bound by stare decisis. And mootness by reason of settlement doesn’t justify vacatur of Board’s decisions.
@IowaPatentLaw @IowaLawSchool Thanks for an excellent symposium! Where can I access the recorded version?
Also affirms DCt’s dismissal of suit against Mylan N.V. for FRCP 12(b)(6) failure to state claim. MPI (WV corp.), not Mylan NV (Pa & Netherlands corp.), signed/submitted ANDA. Plausibility standard for imputing liability to Mylan NV not satisfied by this too-conclusory complaint.
Also holds M has no regular/established place of business in NJ. Although 17 M employees live/work from home in NJ, their homes are not places “of the defendant.” Nor are NJ-located lockers for storing product samples, rented by M’s employees. Case is similar to In re Cray (2017)
Celgene v Mylan 11/5 #FedCir affirms dismissal of C’s HatchWaxman suit for improper venue in NJ; no s1400(b) act of infringement in NJ. Mylan (WV corp) sending C a para IV notice letter in NJ, after submitting ANDA to FDA, is not part of the s271(e)(2) infringing act.
UnivStrathclyde v. Clear-VuLighting 11/4 #FedCir reverses IPR ruling that sterilization method claims wd hv been obvious. Prior art refs did not teach inactivating bacteria via blue light without using photosensitizing agent. No reasonable expectation success. Prior art failures.
@SteveUdick @TheIpHawk @PerryECooper Actually, Brand Pharma may not be happy. Judge Stark ruled for the generic Teva (granting JMOL no infringement), but #FedCir 2-1 reversed him in GlaxoSmithKline v Teva (Aug 5, 2021). Majority held that Teva’s “partial” label induced infringement. Extensive dissent by J. Prost.
@patentlyo Out of curiosity, I searched Chisum on Patents for word "patent." 8779. For "law", only 4169. "Claim": 5091. "Obvious": 1373.
EnergyHeating v HeatOnTheFly 10/14 #FedCir affirms DCT atty fee award to DJ π EH; exceptional case. Prior appeal affirmed patentee HOTF engaged in inequitable conduct. HOTF’s case substantively weak & manner of litigating unreasonable. DCt not req’d to find litigation misconduct.
Majority (Dyk J), cont.: Nor do individual APJs seeking performance bonuses have a significant financial interest to institute IPRs and thus get more "decisional units." And no violation of DP or APA by Director delegating institution decision to same panel that decides merits.
MobilityWorkX v UnifiedPatents 10/13/21 #FedCir 2-1 rejects new Constitutional challenges to AIA. Due Process not violated. PTAB members do not have financial incentive to institute IPRs to get fees; Congress controls PTO budget. Tumey (US 1927) not violated. Newman J dissents.
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