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.
EkoBrands v ARM 1/13 #FederalCircuit panel splits on construction of “passageway” in ARM pat on coffee pod adapter. Reyna (dissent): DCt construction too broad so jury said claims obvious & atty fees awarded. Dyk (majority): fees reasonable even tho DCt denied SJ of obviousness.
Circuit Judge Lourie has never been a fan of the doctrine of equivalents ("exception, not the rule"), but acknowledges here that DOE is "well-established in our jurisprudence," citing his 2019 Lilly v Hospira opinion. Nevertheless, prosecution history estoppel precludes DOE here.
Amgen v Amneal 1/7/20 #FederalCircuit 1) VACATES DCt’s judgmt of no infringmt of Amgen’s patent on SENSIPAR for kidney dialysis; Amneal may infringe bcz DCt construed Markush element too narrowly; 2) AFFIRMS DCt judgmt that def Piramal does NOT infringe equivalently due to PHE.
Chisum Patent Academy announces its first advanced #patent law seminar in #Boston MA, October 1-2, 2020, at the offices of @NelsonMullins See chisum-patent-academy.com/patent-law-sem…
@Chisum Patent Academy announces its first advanced #patent law seminar in #Boston MA, October 1-2, 2020. See chisum-patent-academy.com/patent-law-sem…
IntVentsI v TrendMicro 12/19 #FederalCircuit VACATES 444K atty fees for Trend. DCt held exceptional IV expert's changed trial testimony re claim interp, but case "overall" NOT objectively unreasonable. Unclear. DCt must consider isolated conduct within totality of circumstances.
Chamberlain v OneWorldTech 12/17/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS that challenged garage door opener "learn mode" installation claims are anticipated. PTAB erred bcz C did NOT waive argument re "responsive to" step, but C still loses on merits. Step taught by prior art ref. Q of fact.
Amgen v Hospira 12/16/19 #FederalCircuit sustains jury verdict of $70M for A in biosimilar litigation. H's mfr of 14/21 total batches of EPO was NOT in 35 USC 271(e)(1) safe harbor. Later batches made for continuous process verification=>commercial use; not req'd for FDA approval
BlackbirdTech v HealthInMotion 12/16 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS $363K atty fee award (~650 hours) for def HIM. Exceptional case. DCt dismissed w prejudice B’s “frivolous,” “meritless” suit. B filed covenant not to sue on eve of trial after multiple nuisance-value settlement offers.
Techtronic v ITC 12/12/19 #FederalCircuit REVERSES infringement finding bcz ITC erred in too-broadly interpreting "wall console" for passive IR detector in patented garage door opener. "Clear" tho not explicit prosecution disclaimer of IR on head unit rather than wall console.
Peter v NantKWest 12/11/19 #SCOTUS (Sotomayor J.) unanimously AFFIRMS #FederalCircuit: under 35 USC 145, PTO can NOT recover its atty or paralegal fees as “all . . . expenses” of the proceeding. Plain text of 145 does not overcome American Rule presumption against fee-shifting.
IntellectualVenturesI v CapitalOne 12/11/19 #FederalCircuit denies panel reh’g and reh’g in banc. CapOne’s claim of antitrust violation by IV anticompetitive patent acquisition is barred by collateral estoppel. 4th Cir’s decision in Tuttle is distinguishable in several respects.
Daniel Geyser, attorney for “private respondent” (Click-to-Call) certainly earned his fee yesterday! He started by waiving his two minutes, but proceeded to engage the Court far more than the other lawyers (IMHO). The colloquy w/ Geyser takes up ~35 pages of the 71-pg transcript.
Here's yesterday's SCOTUS oral argument transcript in Click-to-Call ("Son of Cuozzo"--is PTAB determination of 35 USC 315(b) time bar reviewable by #FederalCircuit?): supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
TCLComm v. Ericsson 12/5 #FederalCircuit REVERSES CDCal, which imposed 2 FRAND rates on E’s standard essential patents for 2G/3G/4G comm. Circuit held E had 7th Amdt right to jury trial for computing retrospective “release payment”: compensation for TCL’s past infringment. Legal.
PlasticOmnium v DongheeAm 12/3/19 #FederalCircuit majority (Reyna) AFFIRMS SJ no literal or DOE infringement. D Del. correctly construed "parison" in claimed method of mfg plastic auto fuel tank. Clevenger dissents: DCt took "eye off the ball" by ignoring P's "double die" theory.
PharmaTech v Lifescan 11/22 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS SJ of no DOE infringe by L's OneTouchUltra blood glucose meter; PHE applies. In claim amendments & arguments, P clearly surrendered comparisons other than analyate concentrate measurement. This feature "integral" not tangential.
Game&Tech v WarGaming 11/19/19 #FederalCircuit AFFIRMS PTAB: 1) IPR was NOT s315 time-barred; G&T did not preserve argument that service (unsigned/unsealed) in United Kingdom was proper; 2) claims to method on-line gaming obvious in view of 2 refs incl Dungeons&Dragons handbook.
Koninklijke v Gemalto 11/15 #FederalCircuit REVERSES DDel 12(c) dismiss under s101. Appealed dependent claims directed to non-abstract improvement in existing tech process (error checking in data transmissions). Like Finjan. Specific solution captured in claims, unlike Digitech.
Columbia v Seirus 11/13/19 #FederalCircuit REVERSES DCt’s SJ that design patent on wave pattern design of heat reflective material was infringed. Should have considered impact of defendant’s product logo on ordinary observer. Other disputed fact q’s remain.
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