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.
Evolusion v Juggernaut 1/14 #FedCir broadly construes “magazine catch bar” for semi-auto rifle to include OEM/factory-installed catch bars. Ordinary meaning. Spec does not need to show the specific embodiment. CD Cal’s SJ no literal infringement REVERSED & atty fees to J vacated.
Moore J dissent, continued: “After this case, negative limitations are supported by a specification that simply never mentions them.”
Moore J dissents. “Silence is not disclosure.” Majority’s ruling that WDR is satisfied for no-loading dose limitation contradicts Circuit precedent & nullifies MPEP’s guidance. N’s spec “eerily silent”; nothing affirmatively conveys inventor’s intent to exclude loading dose.
Novartis v HECPharm 1/3/22 #FedCir 2-1 (O’Malley) upholds validity of MS treatment patent. “Prophetic trial” in 2006 priority app satisfies written description req’t for 0.5mg/day dose and no-loading dose limitations. No heightened WDR for negative limitations. WDR = fact q.
Intel has Art III standing to appeal the IPR. Although Q sued only Apple (not Intel), Q read its claims onto Intel’s product in that suit. Although the Q-A suit settled, Intel continues to sell same product to A. Intel’s risks “transcend mere conjecture or hypothesis.”
Intel v Qualcomm 12/28 #FedCir approves PTAB’s “contextually appropriate” BRC construction of “RF input signal.” But PTAB erred in holding Q’s 3 substitute claims nonobvious. Per KSR, predictable combination of prior art teachings. Intel correctly combined the puzzle pieces.
@patentbuddy @ChisumOnPatents Thanks very much for asking. We are fine; our farm is in Central Kentucky, about 200 miles east of where the tornadoes hit. We had high winds, only. The pictures from Western Kentucky are absolutely horrific. Our state has never suffered this much devastation. @ChisumOnPatents
@patentbuddy Wow, really? Even though you use “about” in the written description?
2-1 decision on claim construction; majority opinion by Stoll J (w/ Hughes J); dissent by Taranto J. All three judges agree (w/ DCt) to sustain A’s patent against M’s obviousness challenge. Prior art taught away from claimed invention.
Accordingly, #FedCir vacates DCt’s judgment that Mylan’s generic inhaler composition infringes and remands for fact-finding on whether M’s product has precisely 0.001% PVP stabilizer with only minor variations, i.e., 0.00095% to 0.00104%.
AstraZeneca v Mylan 12/8/21 #FedCir holds failure to use “about” to modify “0.001%” in claim, plus spec & pros history emphasis on criticality of amount, means VERY narrow claim interpretation, not 0.0005-0.0014% as patentee sought. Tiny concentration Δ = big impact on stability.
Prior art range cases not applicable. Substantial evidence supported PTAB's finding that general working conditions disclosed in prior art did not encompass the claimed invention, i.e., there was no overlap in ranges. Prior art capped range of co-administration dosages at 300.
#FedCir rejects argument that T wrongly had to show expectation in prior art that the *specific* claim-recited dosage would have been safe. Reasonable expectation is tied to claim scope. T had to prove reasonable expectation of success in achieving the 600 mg dosage, but didn't.
Teva v Corcept 12/7 #FedCir sustains as unobvious C's patent to treat Cushing's by admin'g 600mg/day mifepristone & strong CYP3A inhibitor. Prior art didn't provide *any* expectation of success above 300 dose. PTAB didn't require "precise predictability." T's expert inconsistent.
In this appeal, #FedCir affirms PTAB's IPR decision that the claims of A's U.S. Patent 8,058,069 are not unpatentable as obvious. Second appeal decision today concerns anticipation of certain claims of A's U.S. Patent 9,364,435.
Moderna (IPR ptr) has Art.III standing here. M risks facing infringement suit based on combination of its activities in developing its own COVID-19 vaccine, A’s broad public statements about its extensive patent coverage in this area, and A’s refusal to grant covenant not to sue.
Moderna v Arbutus 12/1 #FedCir sustains A's patent on siRNA delivery particle. Rejects M's argument that 4th component range is "implicitly" disclosed by express range disclosures for other 3. Unpredictable interactivity. No presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges.
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 Out of curiosity, I searched Chisum on Patents for word "patent." 8779. For "law", only 4169. "Claim": 5091. "Obvious": 1373.
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