On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2019

Released on: Feb. 4, 2019
Running Time: 13:18:00

Please be advised that only breakout sessions 1a, "Analysis of a Technology License Agreement," and 2a, "Licensing Issues in the Life Sciences Industry," will be available via Live Webcast and Groupcast.

Intellectual property licensing continues to grow increasingly complex with the legal, regulatory and technical landscape constantly evolving.  Building and maintaining a successful and effective practice requires that practitioners stay sharp and current in a wide variety of key areas. Whether you are using licensing to develop technology, expand or create market opportunities, or generate returns from existing assets, managing licensing transactions requires a broad and deep toolkit.

Additionally, whether licensing patents, copyrights, trade secrets or trademarks, the ability to structure, draft and negotiate complex license agreements is critical to a successful transaction.

This comprehensive program will feature updates on current legal developments, present case studies highlighting best practices, discuss tactics for negotiating frequently contested issues, and provide guidance on identifying and avoiding common pitfalls. 

Lecture Topics [Total time 13:18:]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:41]
    Marcelo Halpern, Ira Jay Levy, Joseph Yang
  • Party Disputes: Litigation and Case Law Update for Licensing Lawyers [01:00:49]
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Patent and Technology Licensing [01:00:50]
    Joseph Yang
  • Cloud Computing and Big Data [01:29:40]
    Peter J. Kinsella, David W. Tollen
  • Special Licensing Topics: Indemnification and Open Source Issues [01:14:20]
    Christian H. Nadan, Ira Jay Levy
  • Strategic Alliances and Other Joint Development Agreements [00:59:35]
    Joseph Yang
  • Ethical Considerations in Licensing [01:00:55]
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Copyright, Content and Trademark Licensing [01:15:20]
    Diane Gabl Kratz, Brian S. Kelly
  • Software Licensing [01:00:25]
    Mark S. Holmes
  • International Licensing [01:14:45]
    Joseph Yang, Ako S. Williams
  • Breakout Session No. 1a—Analysis of a Technology License Agreement [01:00:55]
    Mark S. Holmes, Marc P. Schuyler, Hsinya Shen
  • Breakout Session No. 2a—Licensing Issues in the Life Sciences Industry [00:56:05]
    Marya Postner, Lindsie Goss, PhD
  • Negotiation Skills and Tactics [00:59:40]
    Marcelo Halpern

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • 10 Questions to Ask About Your Patent Indemnification Provision
    Eleanor M. Yost
  • Best Practices for Technology & Patent Transactions
    Joseph Yang
  • Best Practices for Technology and Patent Transactions (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Licensing of Big Data (PowerPoint slides)
    Raymond R. Ferrell
  • Protecting Your Data in Enterprise Cloud Computing Agreements
    David W. Tollen
  • Advanced Licensing Agreements—Indemnification (PowerPoint slides)
    Themi Anagnos
  • Closing the Loophole: Open Source Licensing & the Implied Patent License
    Christian H. Nadan
  • Open Source Evolution v. 2019
    Paul H. Arne
  • Key IP Challenges in Joint Ventures & Strategic Alliances
    Joseph Yang
  • Key IP Challenges in Joint Ventures & Strategic Alliances (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Best Practices for Trademark Licensing: Substantive Outline & Sample Provisions
    Diane Gabl Kratz
  • How To Establish A World-Class Corporate Brand Licensing Program
    Oliver Herzfeld
  • Advanced Business Issues in Trademark Licensing
    Paula Jill Krasny
  • Mark S. Holmes, Chp 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition) (November 2018)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • International IP Licensing
    Grace L. Pan
  • Intellectual Property Licensing in Asia (PowerPoint slides)
    Grace L. Pan
  • Intellectual Property Licenses and EC Law (November 6, 2018)
    Jeremy Schrire
  • International Licensing: Negotiating Successful License Agreements with Japanese Companies (November 7, 2018)
    Ako S. Williams
  • Copyright and Content Licensing
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Co-Production Agreement (February 24, 1997)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Form Content License Agreement
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Theme Park License between Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Inc.
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Entertainment License Agreement—Underlying Rights Option Agreement for a Television Production Based on a Book
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Siniouguine v. Mediachase Ltd., No. CV 11-6113-JFW, 2012 WL 2317364 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2012)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2015)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Copyright Royalty Board, Modification and Amendment of Regulations to Conform to the MMA, 83 Fed. Reg. 55334 (Nov. 5, 2018)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • License Agreement for Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD) Delivery
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Specimen Provisions from Technology License Agreements
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Key Considerations in License Agreements Specific to the Life Sciences Industry
    Catherine A. Sazdanoff, Lindsie Goss, Marya Postner
  • Insurance Considerations In Celebrity Endorsement Agreements
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Licensing Negotiations: Skills and Tactics
    Marcelo Halpern

Presentation Material

  • Litigation and Case Law Issues For Licensing Attorneys
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Best Practices For Technology & Patent Transactions
    Joseph Yang
  • Big Data Licensing
    David W. Tollen
  • Cloud Computing Legal Issues
    Peter J. Kinsella
  • Indemnification
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Open Source Licensing
    Christian H. Nadan
  • Key IP Challenges in Joint Ventures & Strategic Alliances
    Joseph Yang
  • Ethical Consideration in Licensing and Negotiation
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Copyright and Content Licensing
    Brian S. Kelly
  • Copyright, Content, & Trademark Licensing: Best Practices for Trademark Licensing
    Diane Gabl Kratz
  • Software Licenses
    Mark S. Holmes
  • International Licensing Program
    Laura Berton, Ako S. Williams, Joseph Yang
  • Order Granting Confidential Treatment Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
    Brian S. Kelly
  • Licensing Issues in the Life Sciences Industry
    Lindsie Goss, PhD, Marya Postner
  • Licensing Rights of Publicity
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Licensing Negotiations: Skills and Tactics
    Marcelo Halpern
Co-Chair(s)
Marcelo Halpern ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Ira Jay Levy ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Joseph Yang ~ PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Speaker(s)
Rebecca Ballew ~ Legal Director, Tumblr, Inc.
Lindsie Goss, PhD ~ Senior Technology Manager, Business Development & Strategy, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Brian S. Kelly ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Peter J. Kinsella ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Diane Gabl Kratz ~ Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property, Seagate Technology
Christian H. Nadan ~ SVP & General Counsel, Actian Corporation
Marya Postner ~ Cooley LLP
Marc P. Schuyler ~ Law Office of Marc P. Schuyler
Hsinya Shen ~ Lead Counsel, Akamai Technologies
David W. Tollen ~ Sycamore Legal, PC
Mark G. Tratos ~ Adjunct Faculty, University of Nevada Las Vegas Boyd School of Law and Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Ako S. Williams ~ Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Ushio America, Inc.
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2019 (Chicago, IL) May. 9 - 10, 2019
Advanced Licensing Agreements 2019 (New York, NY) Mar. 4 - 5, 2019

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2018 Mar. 13, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2019 Marcelo Halpern, Perkins Coie LLP
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Ira Jay Levy, Goodwin Procter LLP
 
Advanced Licensing Agreements 2018 Marcelo Halpern, Perkins Coie LLP
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Ira Jay Levy, Goodwin Procter LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.