On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2018: Change & Recalibration

Select a Location:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to evolve at a dizzying pace.  For 2018, the Board has significantly recalibrated such trial mechanisms as remand, amendment, and follow-on petitions.  In parallel, the Federal Circuit has softened the appeal bar in WiFi One, and the Supreme Court continues to examine potential changes to PTAB institution practices.  As stakeholders try to stay abreast of the most recent round of changes, additional challenges have emerged such as sovereign immunity and the inconsistent application of estoppel by the courts.

As the PTAB evolves, so does the patent monetization landscape.  Looking into 2018, with further changes to joinder and other fundamental trial mechanisms on the horizon, new case management strategies, including concurrent patent prosecution and PTAB tactics, options, and exit strategies must be developed.

USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2018 remains the most comprehensive program for patent owners and investors; corporate counsel; patent litigators; patent advisors, owners, and analysts; and patent professionals. Join our expert faculty for a deep-dive practical analysis of these critical post-grant trial proceedings.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:08:40]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:08:06]
    Scott A. McKeown, Robert Greene Sterne
  • Roadblock PTAB: Hardening Patent Portfolios and Adjusting Patent Prosecution Strategies [01:01:39]
    Michael D. Van Loy, Ph.D., Andrew T. Harry
  • PTAB Launch: The Preliminary Proceeding – New Tactics, Evolving Estoppel Risks and Trial Institution [00:58:30]
    Kevin B. Laurence, David L. McCombs
  • PTAB Trial Route: The Article I Trial Court: Mechanics – Discovery, Motion Practice and Amendment [01:00:15]
    Michelle K. Holoubek, Trenton A. Ward
  • PTAB Endgame: The Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC [01:00:40]
    Meredith Martin Addy, Bob Steinberg, John A. Dragseth
  • The Long Road: Patent Monetization in Silicon Valley – Licensing and Navigating Efficient Infringement [01:59:30]
    James R. Batchelder, Peter P. Chen, Anne Layne-Farrar, Steve Chiang, Jonathan M. James

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  •  Roadblock PTAB: Hardening Patent Portfolios and Adjusting Patent Prosecution Strategies
    Eldora L. Ellison
  • PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Institution
    Matthew C. Phillips, Kevin B. Laurence
  • Beyond Just Shenanigans: Judicial Review of PTAB Institution Decisions
    Michael S. Parsons, David L. McCombs
  • PTAB Launch: The Preliminary Proceeding—New Tactics, Evolving Estoppel Risks & Trial Institution
    Amanda Streff Bonner, Christopher Scharff
  • Requirements for Motions for Additional Discovery
    Michelle K. Holoubek
  • Jon E. Wright and Pauline M. Pelletier, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Federal Circuit Concludes that PTAB Not Justified in Placing Burden of Persuasion on Patent Owners When They Seek to Amend Claims in Inter Partes Review (October 4, 2017)
    Michelle K. Holoubek
  • PTAB Endgame: The Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC
    Bob Steinberg
  • Section 101 Considerations in Biopharmaceutical Adversarial PTAB Proceedings
    Anthony R. Prosser, Sherry M. Knowles
  • District Court and PTAB Proceedings for Pharma Patents: Statistics and Strategic Considerations
    Filko Prugo, Jon Tanaka
  • The PTAB’s Estoppel Provision Does Not “Estop” Differences of Opinions
    James R. Batchelder
  • Consistency vs. Conflict: An Economist’s Observations on the Different Standards of Patent Review for PTAB IPRs and Federal Court Patent Infringement Litigation (March 14, 2018)
    Anne Layne-Farrar
  • Post-Grant Practice
    John M. Desmarais
  • 2017 CAFC Guidance for Patent Prosecutors: Prosecutor’s Tool Box 2017 (January 15, 2018)
    Scott A. McKeown

Presentation Material

  •  Roadblock PTAB: Hardening Portfolios and Adjusting Patent Prosecution Strategies
    Andrew T. Harry, Michael D. Van Loy, Ph.D.
  • Successfully Instituting (or Defending) an IPR
    Kevin B. Laurence, David L. McCombs
  • Successfully Instituting (or Defending) an IPR
    Kevin B. Laurence, David L. McCombs
  • Article: PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Institution (Revised - March 26, 2018)
    Kevin B. Laurence
  • The Article I Trial Court: Mechanics - Discovery, Motion Practice and Amendment
    Michelle K. Holoubek, Trenton A. Ward
  • Endgame: The Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC
    John A. Dragseth
Co-Chair(s)
Scott A. McKeown ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Robert Greene Sterne ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Speaker(s)
Meredith Martin Addy ~ Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC
James R. Batchelder ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Peter P. Chen ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Steve Chiang ~ Senior Director and IP Counsel, RPX Corporation
John A. Dragseth ~ Fish & Richardson P.C.
Andrew T. Harry ~ Xsensus, LLP
Michelle K. Holoubek ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jonathan M. James ~ Managing Director, Fortress Investment Group LLC
Kevin B. Laurence ~ Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP
Anne Layne-Farrar ~ Vice President, Charles River Associates
David L. McCombs ~ Haynes and Boone, LLP
Bob Steinberg ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Michael D. Van Loy, Ph.D. ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Trenton A. Ward ~ Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 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.

 

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to evolve at a dizzying pace. For 2018, the Board has significantly recalibrated such trial mechanisms as remand, amendment, and follow-on petitions. In parallel, the Federal Circuit has softened the appeal bar in WiFi One, and the Supreme Court continues to examine potential changes to PTAB institution practices. As stakeholders try to stay abreast of the most recent round of changes, additional challenges have emerged such as sovereign immunity and the inconsistent application of estoppel by the courts.

As the PTAB evolves, so does the patent monetization landscape. Looking into 2018, with further changes to joinder and other fundamental trial mechanisms on the horizon, new case management strategies, including concurrent patent prosecution and PTAB tactics, options, and exit strategies must be developed.

USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2018 remains the most comprehensive program for patent owners and investors; corporate counsel; patent litigators; patent advisors, owners, and analysts; and patent professionals. Join our expert faculty for a deep-dive practical analysis of these critical post-grant trial proceedings.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:23:35]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:09:19]
    Scott A. McKeown, Robert Greene Sterne
  • Roadblock PTAB: Hardening Patent Portfolios and Adjusting Patent Prosecution Strategies [01:01:30]
    Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D., Greg H. Gardella
  • PTAB Launch: The Preliminary Proceeding – New Tactics, Evolving Estoppel Risks and Trial Institution [01:00:15]
    Amanda Streff Bonner, Christopher Scharff
  • PTAB Trial Route: The Article I Trial Court: Mechanics – Discovery, Motion Practice and Amendment [01:03:01]
    Peter P. Chen, Jonathan R. Bowser
  • PTAB Endgame: The Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC [00:59:14]
    Meredith Martin Addy, Hon. Paul R. Michel (Ret.), Peter P. Chen
  • Northeast Corridor: Bio/Pharma at the PTAB [01:07:11]
    Sherry M. Knowles, Hans Sauer, Ph.D., Charlotte Jacobsen
  • Leveraging the PTAB Journey: Concurrent District Court Trial Strategies [01:03:0]
    Jared B. Bobrow, Kevin Schubert, Kevin K. McNish

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Roadblock PTAB: Hardening Patent Portfolios and Adjusting Patent Prosecution Strategies
    Eldora L. Ellison
  • PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Institution
    Kevin B. Laurence, Matthew C. Phillips
  • Beyond Just Shenanigans: Judicial Review of PTAB Institution Decisions
    Michael S. Parsons, David L. McCombs
  • PTAB Launch: The Preliminary Proceeding—New Tactics, Evolving Estoppel Risks & Trial Institution
    Christopher Scharff, Amanda Streff Bonner
  • Requirements for Motions for Additional Discovery
    Michelle K. Holoubek
  • Jon E. Wright and Pauline M. Pelletier, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Federal Circuit Concludes that PTAB Not Justified in Placing Burden of Persuasion on Patent Owners When They Seek to Amend Claims in Inter Partes Review (October 4, 2017)
    Michelle K. Holoubek
  • PTAB Endgame: The Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC
    Bob Steinberg
  • Section 101 Considerations in Biopharmaceutical Adversarial PTAB Proceedings
    Sherry M. Knowles, Anthony R. Prosser
  • District Court and PTAB Proceedings for Pharma Patents: Statistics and Strategic Considerations
    Filko Prugo, Jon Tanaka
  • The PTAB’s Estoppel Provision Does Not “Estop” Differences of Opinions
    James R. Batchelder
  • Consistency vs. Conflict: An Economist’s Observations on the Different Standards of Patent Review for PTAB IPRs and Federal Court Patent Infringement Litigation (March 14, 2018)
    Anne Layne-Farrar
  • Post-Grant Practice
    John M. Desmarais
  • 2017 CAFC Guidance for Patent Prosecutors: Prosecutor’s Tool Box 2017 (January 15, 2018)
    Scott A. McKeown

Presentation Material

  • Patent Prosecution Strategies to Mitigate Post-Grant Challenges under the AIA
    Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D., Greg H. Gardella
  • PTAB Launch: The Preliminary Proceeding - New Tactics, Evolving Estoppel Risks & Trial Institution
    Amanda Streff Bonner, Christopher Scharff
  • Bio/Pharma at the PTAB
    Charlotte Jacobsen
  • Observations on IPRs in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    Hans Sauer, Ph.D.
  • Section 101 in Biopharmaceutical Adversarial PTAB Proceedings
    Sherry M. Knowles
  • Recent Changes in IPR Estoppel in Concurrent District Court Litigation
    Kevin Schubert
  • Use of PTAB Records in District Court
    Jared B. Bobrow
  • Using District Court Materials in PTAB Proceedings
    Kevin K. McNish
  • Supplemental Material - John M. Desmarais and Kevin K. McNish, Post-Grant Practice (Updated as of September 14, 2018)
    Kevin K. McNish
Co-Chair(s)
Scott A. McKeown ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Robert Greene Sterne ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Speaker(s)
Meredith Martin Addy ~ Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC
Jared B. Bobrow ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Amanda Streff Bonner ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Jonathan R. Bowser ~ Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents Inc.
Peter P. Chen ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D. ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Greg H. Gardella ~ Gardella Grace P.A.
Charlotte Jacobsen ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Sherry M. Knowles ~ Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies, LLC
Kevin K. McNish ~ Desmarais LLP
Hon. Paul R. Michel (Ret.) ~ Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC),
Hans Sauer, Ph.D. ~ Deputy General Counsel, VP for Intellectual Property, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO)
Christopher Scharff ~ McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
Kevin Schubert ~ McKool Smith
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

USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2019: Change & Recalibration (New York, NY) Sep. 11, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2019: Change & Recalibration  
USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2018 Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Scott A. McKeown, Ropes & Gray LLP
 
USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2017 Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Scott A. McKeown, Ropes & Gray LLP
 
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.