On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

IP Monetization and Investment 2017: Maximize Your Financial and Strategic Options

Released on: Apr. 21, 2017
Running Time: 06:13:40
The rapidly evolving field of Intellectual property ("IP") monetization and investment is now a core consideration for many companies. Historically focused on high tech and ecommerce, as well as brand and pharma royalties, IP monetization is also of increasing importance more generally, including for automotive, media, financial services, biopharma, medical device and other companies that rely on technology.

IP monetization transactions and structures can generate substantial financial and strategic value, adding an array of options for IP owners and investors. At the same, the IP environment in the U.S. has become increasingly complex, with a resulting material impact on IP monetization strategies. Staying abreast of all relevant developments relating to IP monetization is critical. The state of the law and of the IP marketplace continues to evolve rapidly, with significant legal and business developments occurring on a regular basis. Adding another dimension of complexity and opportunity, IP monetization at the international level has become a fundamental component of many IP monetization programs, as a significant portion of Europe moves toward a unitary European patent, and IP law and strategies continue to mature rapidly in Asian economies. The result is a complex and fluid environment with a substantial amount of both opportunity and uncertainty.

You will learn:

New This Year! Understand ethical issues arising in IP monetization; find out what is required to execute successful patent deals in today's challenging environment; hear strategies and tactics of prosecuting and defending against patent assertion campaigns
Updated! Learn the current state of the IP monetization marketplace
Revised! Maximize IP portfolio value in today’s environment
New Developments! Master the increasingly complex licensing and enforcement landscapes, judicial, legislative and agency actions impacting IP monetization strategies, as well as new monetization products and strategies
Updated! Gain current tips from a broad range of key IP monetization players

In-house corporate, financing and IP counsel and personnel responsible for IP monetization strategies; corporate IP and knowledge managers; financing and investment professionals, as well as others who need to learn or get up to speed on the latest developments in IP monetization, will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:13:40]

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


  • Program Overview* [00:01:03]
    Jose A. Esteves
  • IP Monetization: Techniques for the Current Landscape and Trade Secret Law Implications [01:09:36]
    Jose A. Esteves, Marti A. Johnson
  • Patent Value and Monetization: Impact of High Profile Cases and Statutory Developments [01:00:27]
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Patent Monetization Programs – Assertion and Defense in the Trenches [00:59:37]
    Corey M. Horowitz, David L. Cohen, Eric Huang
  • Doing Patent Deals: Key Issues in a Challenging Environment [00:59:35]
    Lew Zaretzki, Kent Richardson
  • Ethical Issues Arising in IP Monetization [01:01:16]
    Prof. Lisa A. Dolak, David Rabinowitz
  • Successful IP Monetization: What's Working, What Isn’t and Other Lessons Learned [01:02:05]
    Ed Fish, Michael D. Friedman, Aaron Slan

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Overview of IP Monetization Techniques
    Jose A. Esteves
  • The Defend Trade Secrets Act: An Overview of New Federal Protections for Trade Secrets
    Patrick L. Benitez, Scott M. Flanz, Marti A. Johnson
  • Court Developments Impacting on Patent Monetization (February 2017)
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Strategic and Tactical Considerations in Litigating Against NPEs (February 17, 2017)
    Victoria F. Maroulis, Patrick Burns
  • The Ethics of Patent Assertion: Does “Purpose” Matter?
    Lisa A. Dolak
  • Negotiation Ethics: Guidance for the Intellectual Property Practitioner
    Lisa A. Dolak
  • Maximize Your Financial and Strategic Options, Doing Patent Deals: Key Issues in a Challenging Environment
    Lew Zaretzki
  • IP Monetization: What’s Working, What’s Not
    Jose A. Esteves

Presentation Material


  • IP Monetization Techniques
    Jose A. Esteves
  • Trade Secret Monetization & Current State of Trade Secret Law
    Marti A. Johnson
  • Recent Case Law And Its Impact On IP Monetization
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Patent Monetization Programs – Assertion and Defense in the Trenches
    David L. Cohen, Corey M. Horowitz, Eric Huang
  • Strategic and Tactical Considerations in Litigating Against NPEs
    Eric Huang
  • Doing Patent Deals: Key Issues in a Challenging Environment
    Kent Richardson
  • Valuation Challenges: Patent Transactions
    Lew Zaretzki
  • Doing Patent Deals: Key Issues in a Challenging Environment
    Kent Richardson, Lew Zaretzki
  • Ethics Risks of Patent Monetization Litigation
    Prof. Lisa A. Dolak
  • Negotiation Ethics - Cases
    David Rabinowitz
  • Successful IP Monetization: What's Working, What Isn’t and Other Lessons Learned
    Ed Fish
  • Successful IP Monetization: What's Working, What Isn’t and Other Lessons Learned
    Ed Fish, Michael D. Friedman, Aaron Slan
Chairperson(s)
Jose A. Esteves ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Speaker(s)
David L. Cohen ~ Chief Legal and IP Officer, FORM Holdings Corp.
Prof. Lisa A. Dolak ~ Senior Vice President and University Secretary, Angela S. Cooney Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law
Ed Fish ~ Managing Director & Co-Head of Tech+IP Advisory, Houlihan Lokey
Michael D. Friedman ~ CEO, Hilco IP Merchant Banking
Corey M. Horowitz ~ Chairman and CEO, Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Eric Huang ~ Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Marti A. Johnson ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Ira Jay Levy ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
David Rabinowitz ~ Moses & Singer LLP
Kent Richardson ~ Richardson Oliver Law Group
Aaron Slan ~ Senior Vice President, Fortress Investment Group LLC
Lew Zaretzki ~ Managing Director, Hamilton IPV
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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Share
Email
"Excellent and insightful program. I enjoyed each session."
Hannah Murray Naltner, Steelcase Inc.


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.