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.
InReJuniperNetwks 9/24 #FedCir mandamuses WDTex (Albright J) again & orders BrazosLLC's case transferred to NDCal. B's showing on witness convenience & other factors "very weak." B's Waco office is recent/insubstantial. Ct congestion "speculative." B is a NPE; no need for speed.
Golf fans: Enjoy the Ryder Cup. Many patents relate to golf balls and equipment. chisum-patent-academy.com/wp-content/upl…
@patentlyo @TempletonCB Happy to hear it (as long as you're not *tearing up* my book!)
InReMaxPower 9/8 #FedCir refuses to mandamus PTAB for instituting IPR despite arbitration clause in license agrmt. Issue of 1st impression. O'Malley j. dissents extensively: 35 USC. §294 prevents institution of agency proceedings initiated by a party to an arbitration agreement.
@USembassyMadrid Is a proper CDC vaccination card (paper) being excepted in Spain as sufficient documentation?
BelcherPharm v Hospira 9/1 #FedCir affirms DDel’s inequitable conduct ruling. Patentee’s Chief Science Officer, who prosecuted patent, knew the alleged critical improvement was already in public domain. No excuse that he (non-agent/atty) mistakenly thought prior art “irrelevant.”
Dissent by Newman, J: Chung had actual notice because of prior collaboration with inventor/owner of patentee Lubby, who told him not to infringe when that collaboration ended. Jury heard about this. No sound basis to discard jury's verdict.
LubbyHoldings v Chung 9/1 #FedCir vacates jury award $864M. Patentee failed to mark e-cigarette product under s287; no pre-suit damages. That accused infringer knew patent issued is NOT s287 actual notice; requires "specific charge" of infringement by "specific accused device."
@HolbrookPatents @marklemley I doubt it. I'm thinking SCOTUS will be much more interested in the #FedCir's August 5 do-over opinion in GlaxoSmithKline v Teva (holding that Teva induced infringement via skinny label).
DataEngineTechs v Google 8/26 #FedCir rejects another "nose of wax" argument; holds that when (as here) patentee relied on preamble language to argue its claims are s101 patent-eligible, it cannot later assert that preamble term has no patentable weight in showing infringement.
Lack of amino acid sequence is not necessarily fatal but Juno's patent did not provide any identifying means such as common structural characteristics or shared traits. Broad genus claims here are similar to those in Idenix (2019) or AbbVie (2014). Ct distinguishes Capon (2005).
JunoTherapeutics v KitePharm 8/26/21 #FedCir wipes out $1.2B jury award; holds CAR T-cell genus claims w "exceedingly broad" functional limitations do NOT meet written description req't. Only 2 scFv fragments disclosed but "limitless" targets and no amino acid sequence provided.
NB from the CommScope opinion: "an argument that is only made in a footnote of an appellant’s brief is forfeited. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)."
CommScopeTechs v DaliWireless 8/24 #FedCir reverses JMOL, upending jury verdict. Patentee's expert failed to read claim on accused dev EXACTLY. No "hair splitting" to require this for literal infringmnt. Can't make "nose of wax" argument against anticipation but for infringement.
CampbellSoup v Gamon 8/19 #FedCir reverses PTAB in design patent IPR. Claimed design (some features of can dispenser) wd hv bn obvious. Nexus w commercial success not established via presumption or in-fact. Design’s “unique characteristics” were not linked to objective indicia.
Hyatt v Hirshfeld 8/18 #FedCir affirms DCt denial of PTO motion for expert witness fees under 35 USC 145 “all expenses of the proceeding.” “Expenses” does NOT include expert witness fees, similarly to no attorney fees per NantKWest (US2019). American rule presumption stands.
ValveCorp v IronburgInvention 8/17 #FedCir REVERSES Bd ruling that WayBackMachine printout of online promotional review wasn’t 102 printed publication. FRE 901 comparison to authenticate doesn’t require testimony. “Overwhelming” evidence of public accessibility pre-priority date.
PersonalWebTechs v Google 8/12/21 #FedCir affirms NDCal that data processing system patent w 1995 priority date is s101 invalid. Ct previously held that each of 3 claim steps is abstract concept, to give a “medley of mental processes.”
SeaBed v Magseis 8/11/21 #FedCir vacates PTAB decision that upheld seismometer patent. Bd's BRC construction of "geophone" as "non-gimbaled" too narrow. Bd erred in finding "special meaning" in prior art at invention date when intrinsic evidence clearly supported broader meaning
@DocketAlarm indicates that accused inducing infringer Teva yesterday (August 10) sought 30-day extension of time (until Oct 7) to file its petition for rehearing en banc of the #FedCir's new August 5 decision. Teva's motion is unopposed by GSK. Other litigation/travel cited.
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