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.
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.
February 21-22, 2019: Houston, TX
August 8-9, 2019: Seattle, WA
Inspired Development v KidsEmbrace 9/18/19 #FederalCircuit vacates for dismissal breach of K case (past due pat royalties); appeal xfr'd from 11th Cir; DCt lacked 1338 arising under jurisdiction. Unjust enrichment claim fails Gunn test; no substantial issue of federal patent law.
Intra-Cellular v Iancu #FederalCircuit 9/18/19. Second PTA decision this week. AFFIRMS DCt's SJ for PTO on its determination that the extra 21 days it took I-C to file a successful response after 3-month deadline for responding to final Office action constituted applicant delay.
MayoFound v Iancu 9/16/19 #FederalCircuit majority (Lourie) AFFIRMS EDVa in patent term adjustment dispute. RCE filed then 2-yr interference; post-interference exam time NOT included in PTA. Newman dissent: "plainly examination delay due to PTO procedures" that should be counted.
IV v CapitalOne 9/10 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS D.Md in 39-pg antitrust opinion. DCt correctly dismissed CO's AT claims bcz "strong" collateral estoppel from co-pending EDVa lit. Same fact issues both cases--improper market def'n & no monopoly power in that market
UTexas v BostonScientific 9/5 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS WDTexas venue transfer order to DDel (=BSC incorp'd). Appell. review OK under collateral order doctrine. 11th Amdt does NOT give UT right to sue in improper venue. Sov. immunity is shield, not sword; N/A when state=plaintiff.
Allergan v Sandoz 8/29/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS DNJ Hatch-Wax prelim injunction grant. No error in claim construction (dispositive). The "wherein" clauses in method claims for treating glaucoma w/ COMBIGAN *are* limiting; material to patentability. Prost CJ concurs.
BiodeliverySci v Aquestive 8/29/19 #FederalCircuit IPR part institution; then SAS Inst; then PTAB reconsiders & denies institution on all claims/grounds. Circuit holds this NOT reviewable under 314(d). No req't that once instituted, IPRs must proceed through FWDs. Newman dissents
Guangdong Alison v ITC 8/27/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS ITC that claims to aerogel insulation having fibrous "lofty . . . batting" are NOT indefinite; wr descr & pros hist provide reasonable certainty per Nautilus: objective boundaries/ex's/metrics. Ct also affirms no anticipation
But Circuit upholds jury verdict that 2d patent on battery backup sys for opener is valid (not anticipated). DCT erred by suggesting a blanket rule that 2 embodiments disclosed in a ref can never be considered in combination to make a finding of anticipation, but error harmless.
Chamberlain v TTI 8/21/19 #FederalCircuit REVERSES NDIll bcz '275 patent on garage door opener NOT 101-eligible. Abstract idea of wirelessly communicating status info. No inventive concept in ordered combo. VACATES JMOL of atty fees ("much" of DCt analysis re '275) & injunction.
Anza v Mushkin 8/16/19 #FederalCircuit fact-specific case applying "relation back" doctrine from FRCP 15(c) to decide whether 35USC 286 damages time limit expired on 2d amended complaint. DCt's dismissal REVERSED for some accused prods & VACATED for others. P gets some damages.
MyMail v OoVoo 8/16/19 #Federal Circuit (Reyna J) VACATES NDCal s101 ineligibility dismissal bcz DCt failed to first interpret claims to method of modifying computer-displayed "toolbar" per Aatrix (2018). Lourie J dissents: cls "clearly abstract" & interpretive issue a "mirage."
Circuit reverses as to 2 other patents; claims to composition and method would have been obvious per KSR bcz predictable combination of 2 known obesity drugs. Failure of others not enough to overcome.
Nalpropion v Actavis 8/15/19 #FederalCircuit majority (Lourie) affirms in part DDel. Claimed method for treating obesity [CONTRAVE] satisfied written description rqt bcz spec provided "substantially equivalent disclosure" to claims. Prost CJ dissents from this "new rule" for WDR.
Sanofi v Fresenius 8/14 #FederalCircuit VACATES DNJ in part. Parallel IPR held some claims unpatentable; S statutorily disclaimed them. DCt entered DJ invalidity, but this=error bcz no Art III case/controversy post-disclaimer. Bd hd denied mtn to amend claims; appeal speculative.
@StunlockFTW Life would be much simpler without Williamson “presumption” and accompanying doctrine. Just have bright line rule based on whether the word “means” is used or not. Let drafter decide if claim is MPF and live with it.
IridescentNetwork v AT&T 8/12/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS EDTex narrow construction of "high quality of service connection.” Coined term of degree w no meaning in art, but limited to min. connection parameter reqts disclosed in pat's Fig 3. P resp to exr's enablement rejn binding.
MTD Prods v Iancu 8/12/19 #FederalCircuit VACATES PTAB IPR that claims to zero-turn lawnmower wd hv bn obvious. Bd should have construed nonce term “mechanical control assembly” as 112/6 MPF; wrongly reasoned that so long as claim term has corresponding structure, it's not MPF.
@ChisumOnPatents & I just finished a terrific patent law seminar in Seattle, hosted by @BracewellLaw. Attendees L to R: Gupta Balaram, Doug Stewart, Brienne Terril, Matthew Bedsole, Toshiko Takenaka, Janice Mueller, Donald Chisum, Sue Isono, Reza Mollaaghababa, Chris Lambrecht.
GenVetSci v Laboklin 8/9/19 #FederalCircuit affirms EDVa that claimed method of in vitro test whether Labrador Retriever dog carries gene mutation for HNPK disease is NOT 101 eligible. Claims directed to “observing or identifying” natural phenomenon of a mutation in SUV39H2 gene.
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