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.
Intact, not entact 😒
Today's Order List:
Certiorari DENIED in American Axle!
Static v Leader 6/28 #FedCir 2-1 reverses DCt's civil contempt award of sanctions/fees for protective order violation. Fair ground of doubt as to whether pr order barred L atty's disclosure of info to non-party's atty (also signatory to order) to develop a joint defense strategy.
UMass v L'Oreal 6/13 #FedCir vacates indefiniteness ruling on skincare patent. DCt erred in construing adenosine's "concentration applied to dermal cells" as concentration in skin. Per spec & pros history, term refers to concentration *in the composition* applied to skin surface.
Patent system traps for the unwary. Example: Junker (2022); inventor’s pre-critical date letter to buyer with “quotation” of terms with price depending on quantity. Invalidating offer for sale. Design patent. Easy to have filed application sooner
Digging into the Nippon Shinyaku case (Feb. 8, 2022) on forum selection clause (only Delaware!) precluding inter partes review petition in PTO. Petitioner seeking en banc review. Will the Federal Circuit grant it?
Old cases: I occasionally hear comments about “old” cases not counting. Not true! especially in patent law and Federal Circuit precedent. Example: Caltech (2022) overturned $1 billion jury verdict based on flawed “two-tier” damage theory. Key authorities: 1983 and 2006 cases.
@McCoySmith @patentbuddy Not mentioned
@Patent_assoc Interesting; thank you. Assume you use Matthews on-line in Westlaw?
#FedCir further holds no error in P's profit-split damages theory; earlier license's profit % representation provided greater context for royalty rate. License sufficiently comparable such that apportionment was built-in & accounted for non-infringing features of accused product.
#FedCir further holds "reliance on an obvious minor clerical error in the claim language is not a defense to willful infringement." "An obvious minor clerical error, by definition, does not mask that meaning, so Kingston cannot hide behind the error to escape the jury’s verdict."
Pavo v Kingston 6/3 #FedCir sustains jury v that K willfully infringed USB flash drive patent -> $7.5M reas royalty + 50% enhance. CDCal properly corrected obvious minor clerical error in claims. Chef America distinguished. Applicant's meaning was clear & pros history consistent.
@Patent_assoc What are your go-to treatises on Westlaw?
ClearOne v Shure 6/1/22 #FedCir affirms IPR decision that "self-similar configuration" term in S's proposed new claim for ceiling microphone array is not indefinite. Well-known meaning. Spec equates (not contrasts) term to fractal-like or repeating patterns. Not a term of degree.
Lastly, Circuit rejects Arthrex‘s argument that PTAB did not have authority to consider s112 written description compliance issue. The ground for IPR was s102 anticipation. It was proper for PTAB to determine s120 priority of challenged claims (req’g WDR analysis) vs. ref’s date.
Director’s (PAS officer’s) discretion under Arthrex (US 2021) includes discretion to delegate review of IPR rehearing requests. Duty to decide them is delegable under Federal Vacancies Reform Act. No FVRA violation here.
Arthrex 5/27 #FedCir holds although Commissioner for Patents is not a Presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed (PAS) officer, he properly issued the final decision here in an acting, stand-in capacity on behalf of the PAS. See Eaton (US 1898). No Appointments Clause violation.
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
![test Twitter Media - Need insight on “built-in apportionment” in #patent damages? When are past licenses sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical negotiation? The latest digital update to Mueller on Patent Law treatise from #Fastcase analyzes relevant #FedCir decisions. See MOPL s20.04[B][3][b]. https://t.co/5AEEdQY2qi](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU0Q7qMWIAgRu2h.jpg)