On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2018

Select a Location:

PLI’s Intellectual Property Law Institute is a “must-attend” program for IP lawyers. This program provides a complete analysis of key events in all areas of IP, including updates on cases, legislation and government agency developments that all IP lawyers need to know.

Listen to a panel of in-house IP counsel from prominent companies discuss best practices and strategies for confronting IP issues. Plenary sessions will address recent developments in privacy issues; trademark hot topics; exhaustion of IP assets; standards-essentials patents; trade secrets; recent court decisions regarding copyright; and ethical issues for IP practitioners. Choose from four different breakout sessions, each addressing three topics that will focus respectively on recent developments regarding copyrights, licensing, patents, and trademarks.  

Lecture Topics [Total time 00:15:45]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:11:04]
    Robert P. Taylor, David Bender
  • Privacy: What’s All the Noise About? [01:00:46]
    David Bender
  • Patent Eligibility: Current Trends and Critical Issues for Section 101 [00:58:40]
    Richard M. Marsh, Jr.
  • Trademark Hot Topics [01:02:30]
    Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • Breakout Session No. 1a—Licensing [01:30:05]
    Mark S. Holmes, Lindsey J. Canning, Matthew Hult
  • Breakout Session No. 2b—Trademark [01:31:35]
    Karen Frank, Bobby Ghajar, Mark A. Jansen
  • Fair Use and Other Copyright Doctrines for Delineating User Rights from Owner Interests [01:00:50]
    Lateef Mtima
  • How the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law Will Affect Your Business [00:58:40]
    James Pooley
  • Reconciling IP Protection with Antitrust and Competition Laws [01:01:30]
    Robert P. Taylor
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel [01:29:40]
    Earl (Eb) Bright, James M. Kennedy, Jean I. Liu, Ali Torabi, Mary Albertson
  • Critical Ethics Issues for the IP Lawyer [01:01:45]
    Merri A. Baldwin, Alison P. Buchanan

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Privacy and Data Protection Law Developments—2018 (July 9, 2018)
    David Bender
  • Richard M. Marsh, Jr. and Braden Katterheinrich, A Safe Harbor in a Sea of Uncertainty: Finding Patent Eligibility for Software-Related Inventions (July 5, 2018)
    Richard M. Marsh
  • Trademark Hot Topics (2018)
    Siegrun D. Kane, Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • Charan J. Sandhu, Rami Sherman and Gordon Gao, Current Issues in Chinese IP Licensing (2018)
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Charan J. Sandhu, Rami Sherman and Pravin Anand, Current Issues in Indian IP Licensing (2018)
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Ch. 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition) (October 2013)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Licensing in the EU (2018)
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • The “Internet of Things” Should Be the “Security of Things” (2018)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • William A. Tanenbaum and Randall Stempler, Addressing Legal Risks in Health Care IT Contracts
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • IP Traps in Joint Development Agreements (2017)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • William Sloan Coats and Devin R. Coats, East v. West: The Federal Circuit and The Ninth Circuit Wrestle Over APIs (2018)
    William Sloan Coats
  • The DMCA—Twenty Years Later (2018)
    Jonathan E. Moskin
  • DMCA Safe Harbor Recent Developments (2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Neel Chatterjee
  • Recent Developments in Patent Venue Law: A Review of TC Heartland and Beyond
    Jennifer Sklenar
  • Jason D. Eisenberg, Michael E. Joffre, Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Lestin L. Kenton, Jr., William H. Milliken, Pauline M. Pelletier, Byron L. Pickard, Michael D. Specht, Deirdre M. Wells and Jon E. Wright, CAFC and SCOTUS Decisions: 2017–2018 Cases Emerging from the PTAB (2018)
    Robert Greene Sterne
  • Federal Circuit Developments 2018 (July 3, 2018)
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • Brian W. Brokate and Maja Szumarska, Anticounterfeiting Enforcement 2018: Developing Trends in Enforcement and Remedies: What’s New in Civil, Criminal and Government Actions
    Brian W. Brokate
  • ICANN: From History to “WHOIS” in a Post-GDPR World (2018)
    Douglas (Chip) A. Rettew
  • Related Goods in Our Highly Interconnected World (2018)
    Karen S. Frank, Helen Hill Minsker
  • Allocating Rights in Copyright: Recent Developments in Fair Use and Related Author/User Copyright Doctrines (August 10, 2018)
    Lateef Mtima
  • A Practical Guide to the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law: 2018 (July 5, 2018)
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Intellectual Property Rights Meet Antitrust Law: Outcomes Without Limiting Principles (August 6, 2018)
    Robert P. Taylor
  • How In-House IP Counsel Can Add Value in M&A (July 2018)
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Gail H. Zarick
  • Language Issues in Drafting Indemnification Clauses
    Joel A. Wolfson
  • Licensing—University and Industry Perspectives (Outline)
    Mary Albertson
  • Ethical Issues in Intellectual Property Practice: Emerging Issues in Conflicts and Disqualification; Technology Problems
    Steven C. Bennett

Presentation Material

  • Privacy: What’s All the Noise About?
    David Bender
  • Patent Eligibility: Current Trends and Critical Issues for Section 101
    Richard M. Marsh, Jr.
  • Trademark Hot Topics
    Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • DMCA Safe Harbor Recent Developments
    Darryl M. Woo
  • East v. West: the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Wrestle Over APIs
    William Sloan Coats
  • Licensing in the EU
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Licensing in the U.S.
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Licensing in the U.S.
    Matthew Hult
  • Software and Data Licensing
    Fabio E. Marino
  • Developments in CAFC Jurisprudence 2018
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • ICANN Developments: WHOIS in a Post-GDPR World
    Mark A. Jansen
  • Anticounterfeiting Enforcement Update 2018
    Bobby Ghajar
  • Patent Venue
    Jennifer Sklenar
  • TTAB UPDATE RELATED GOODS IN OUR HIGHLY-INTERCONNECTED WORLD
    Karen Frank
  • TRADE SECRETS: HOW THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS WILL AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS
    James Pooley
  • Antitrust Meets Intellectual Property: Recent Developments
    Robert P. Taylor
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Mary Albertson
  • Ethical issues for the IP Lawyer
    Merri A. Baldwin, Alison P. Buchanan
Co-Chair(s)
David Bender ~ Adjunct Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Pace University Law School, The Law Office of David Bender
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
Speaker(s)
Mary Albertson ~ Associate Director of Operations, Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford University
Merri A. Baldwin ~ Rogers Joseph O'Donnell
Earl (Eb) Bright ~ President & General Counsel, ExploraMed Development, LLC
Alison P. Buchanan ~ Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel
Lindsey J. Canning ~ White & Case LLP
William Sloan Coats ~ Attorney-at-Law,
Karen Frank ~ Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP
Bobby Ghajar ~ Cooley LLP
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Matthew Hult ~ Senior Director, Intellectual Property, Juul Labs, Inc.
Mark A. Jansen ~ Fenwick & West LLP
James M. Kennedy ~ SVP, Legal Affairs & Business Strategy, Pixar Animation Studios
Joseph P. Lavelle ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Jean I. Liu ~ Executive Vice President, Legal Affairs & General Counsel , Seattle Genetics, Inc.
Fabio E. Marino ~ Polsinelli LLP
Richard M. Marsh, Jr. ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Kathleen E. McCarthy ~ King & Spalding
Lateef Mtima ~ Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law
James Pooley ~ James Pooley, a Professional Law Corporation
Jennifer Sklenar ~ Arnold & Porter LLP
Robert Greene Sterne ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Ali Torabi ~ Director of Corporate Development, Solar Junction Corporation
Darryl M. Woo ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
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.

 

Please note that only Breakout Session No. 1a—Licensing and Breakout Session No. 2b—Trademark will be available via live webcast.

PLI’s Intellectual Property Law Institute is a “must-attend” program for IP lawyers. This program provides a complete analysis of key events in all areas of IP, including updates on cases, legislation and government agency developments that all IP lawyers need to know.

Listen to a panel of in-house IP counsel from prominent companies discuss best practices and strategies for confronting IP issues. Plenary sessions will address recent developments in privacy issues; trademark hot topics; exhaustion of IP assets; standards-essentials patents; trade secrets; recent court decisions regarding copyright; and ethical issues for IP practitioners. Choose from four different breakout sessions, each addressing three topics that will focus respectively on recent developments regarding copyrights, licensing, patents, and trademarks.

Lecture Topics [Total time 14:38:46]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:33]
    David Bender, Robert P. Taylor
  • Privacy: What’s All the Noise About? [01:06:19]
    David Bender
  • Patent Eligibility: Current Trends and Critical Issues for Section 101 [00:59:42]
    Richard M. Marsh, Jr.
  • Trademark Hot Topics [00:56:52]
    Siegrun D. Kane
  • Breakout Session No. 1a—Licensing [01:30:37]
    Charan J. Sandhu, Mark S. Holmes, Lindsey J. Canning
  • Breakout Session No. 1b—Copyright [01:28:10]
    William A. Tanenbaum, William Sloan Coats, Jonathan E. Moskin
  • Breakout Session No. 2b—Trademark [01:27:42]
    Helen Hill Minsker, Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew, Brian W. Brokate
  • Breakout Session No. 2a—Patent [01:29:40]
    Joseph P. Lavelle, Robert Greene Sterne, Jennifer Sklenar
  • Fair Use and Other Copyright Doctrines for Delineating User Rights from Owner Interests [00:59:41]
    Lateef Mtima
  • How the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law Will Affect Your Business [01:00:01]
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Reconciling IP Protection with Antitrust and Competition Laws [01:02:16]
    Robert P. Taylor
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel [01:31:11]
    Joel Wolfson, Gail H. Zarick, Orrie Dinstein
  • Critical Ethics Issues for the IP Lawyer [01:02:03]
    Steven C. Bennett

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Privacy and Data Protection Law Developments—2018 (July 9, 2018)
    David Bender
  • Richard M. Marsh, Jr. and Braden Katterheinrich, A Safe Harbor in a Sea of Uncertainty: Finding Patent Eligibility for Software-Related Inventions (July 5, 2018)
    Richard M. Marsh
  • Trademark Hot Topics (2018)
    Siegrun D. Kane, Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • Charan J. Sandhu, Rami Sherman and Gordon Gao, Current Issues in Chinese IP Licensing (2018)
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Charan J. Sandhu, Rami Sherman and Pravin Anand, Current Issues in Indian IP Licensing (2018)
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Ch. 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition) (October 2013)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Licensing in the EU (2018)
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • The “Internet of Things” Should Be the “Security of Things” (2018)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • William A. Tanenbaum and Randall Stempler, Addressing Legal Risks in Health Care IT Contracts
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • IP Traps in Joint Development Agreements (2017)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • William Sloan Coats and Devin R. Coats, East v. West: The Federal Circuit and The Ninth Circuit Wrestle Over APIs (2018)
    William Sloan Coats
  • The DMCA—Twenty Years Later (2018)
    Jonathan E. Moskin
  • DMCA Safe Harbor Recent Developments (2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Neel Chatterjee
  • Recent Developments in Patent Venue Law: A Review of TC Heartland and Beyond
    Jennifer Sklenar
  • Jason D. Eisenberg, Michael E. Joffre, Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Lestin L. Kenton, Jr., William H. Milliken, Pauline M. Pelletier, Byron L. Pickard, Michael D. Specht, Deirdre M. Wells and Jon E. Wright, CAFC and SCOTUS Decisions: 2017–2018 Cases Emerging from the PTAB (2018)
    Robert Greene Sterne
  • Federal Circuit Developments 2018 (July 3, 2018)
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • Brian W. Brokate and Maja Szumarska, Anticounterfeiting Enforcement 2018: Developing Trends in Enforcement and Remedies: What’s New in Civil, Criminal and Government Actions
    Brian W. Brokate
  • ICANN: From History to “WHOIS” in a Post-GDPR World (2018)
    Douglas (Chip) A. Rettew
  • Related Goods in Our Highly Interconnected World (2018)
    Helen Hill Minsker, Karen S. Frank
  • Allocating Rights in Copyright: Recent Developments in Fair Use and Related Author/User Copyright Doctrines (August 10, 2018)
    Lateef Mtima
  • A Practical Guide to the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law: 2018 (July 5, 2018)
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Intellectual Property Rights Meet Antitrust Law: Outcomes Without Limiting Principles (August 6, 2018)
    Robert P. Taylor
  • How In-House IP Counsel Can Add Value in M&A (July 2018)
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Gail H. Zarick
  • Language Issues in Drafting Indemnification Clauses
    Joel A. Wolfson
  • Licensing—University and Industry Perspectives (Outline)
    Mary Albertson
  • Ethical Issues in Intellectual Property Practice: Emerging Issues in Conflicts and Disqualification; Technology Problems
    Steven C. Bennett

Presentation Material

  • Privacy Developments - 2018: What's All the Noise About?
    David Bender
  • Developments in CAFC Jurisprudence 2018
    Richard M. Marsh, Jr.
  • Trademark Hot Topics: 2018
    Siegrun D. Kane
  • Copyright Developments
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • East v. West: the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Wrestle Over APIs
    William Sloan Coats
  • IP Licensing in Asia
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Licensing in the EU
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Licensing in the U.S.
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Anticounterfeiting Enforcement 2018: What Brands Should Consider When Developing Enforcement Strategies
    Brian W. Brokate
  • Developments in CAFC Jurisprudence 2018
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • From History to WHOIS in a Post-GDPR World, All Things ICANN
    Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew
  • Patent Venue
    Jennifer Sklenar
  • TTAB Update: Related Goods in our Highly-Interconnected World
    Helen Hill Minsker
  • The Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law and What You Need to Do About Them
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Antitrust Meets Intellectual Property: Recent Developments
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Implementing Physical and Cyber Protection for IP
    Orrie Dinstein
  • Managing Your IP Risk Through Clear Indemnification Clauses
    Joel Wolfson
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Gail H. Zarick
  • IP Lawyer Ethical Issues
    Steven C. Bennett
Co-Chair(s)
David Bender ~ Adjunct Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Pace University Law School, The Law Office of David Bender
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
Speaker(s)
Steven C. Bennett ~ Park Jensen Bennett LLP
Brian W. Brokate ~ Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Lindsey J. Canning ~ White & Case LLP
William Sloan Coats ~ Attorney-at-Law,
Victoria A. Cundiff ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Orrie Dinstein ~ Global Chief Privacy Officer , Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Siegrun D. Kane ~ Kane Advisors, LLP
Joseph P. Lavelle ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Richard M. Marsh, Jr. ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Helen Hill Minsker ~ Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
Jonathan E. Moskin ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Lateef Mtima ~ Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law
Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew ~ Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Charan J. Sandhu ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Jennifer Sklenar ~ Arnold & Porter LLP
Robert Greene Sterne ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
William A. Tanenbaum ~ Polsinelli
Joel Wolfson ~ Director and Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Gail H. Zarick ~ IP Counsel, IBM Security Division, IBM Corporation
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

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2019 (San Francisco, CA) Oct. 21 - 22, 2019
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2019 (New York, NY) Sep. 23 - 24, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2018 Robert P. Taylor, RPT Legal Strategies PC
David Bender, The Law Office of David Bender
 
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2017 Robert P. Taylor, RPT Legal Strategies PC
David Bender, The Law Office of David Bender
 
Share
Email

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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.