On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Patent Licensing 2018

Released on: Sep. 21, 2018
Running Time: 07:08:25

In the current legal environment, with patent litigation on the decline (especially in the U.S.), patent licensing (and related transactions) are heating up. Experts in patent licensing will discuss how to negotiate patent license agreements, review examples of best (and, in some cases, worst) practices, and share current legal developments affecting patent licensing. Practical tips for structuring, negotiating and drafting patent licenses, with strategies for both the licensor and licensee, will be emphasized. 

Topics Include

• Tips on monetizing patents and/or resisting monetization invitations

• Exploring patent and/or license enforcement considerations

• Updates on the patent monetization environment in the U.S. and abroad

• Best practices from experts at Silicon Valley’s best companies/firms

• Discovering litigation trends from recent years affecting IP licensing generally

• Understanding how specific court cases have (in some ways) expanded and/or (in other ways) shrunken patenting, licensing, enforcement and/or patent challenge opportunities

• Learning how to update traditional patent licensing provisions in light of recent case law

• Identifying frequently contested provisions and how to negotiate them

Special Features

• Actual Agreements: analysis of patent license agreement provisions by 5 national experts

• Mock patent licensing negotiation

Lecture Topics [Total time 07:08:25]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:05:04]
    Mark S. Holmes, Joseph Yang
  • Opening the Negotiation; Strategic & Business Aspects of Structuring the Patent License Agreement Grant [01:03:26]
    Robert P. Taylor, Kent Richardson
  • What’s Changed Since Last Year?: New Court Decisions Affecting Patent Licensing [01:00:35]
    Joseph Yang
  • A Deeper Look at Deal Dynamics & Terms: Analysis of a Patent License Agreement [01:59:10]
    Mark S. Holmes, William H. Hamby, Winston E. Henderson, Meredith M. McKenzie, Suzanne Y. Bell, Carrie M. LeRoy
  • What’s New in the World of Standards-Essential Patents & RAND Licensing, and Implications for Established & Emerging Industries [01:30:30]
    Joseph Yang, Rick C. Chang, Khue V. Hoang
  • Issue Spotting & Live Mock Deal Negotiation of a Patent License: A Panel of Patent Licensing Specialists [01:29:40]
    Joseph Yang, Jake Handy, Nader A. Mousavi

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Declaratory Judgments Ten Years After Medimmune (July 6, 2018)
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Structuring the Patent License Agreement Grant (PowerPoint slides)
    Burch A. Harper
  • Recent Legal Developments Affecting Patent Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Recent Developments in IP/Tech Law: 2017 in Review (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Specimen Provisions from Patent License Agreements; Excerpts reprinted from Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Mark S. Holmes, Ch. 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition) (November 2017)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Carrie LeRoy and Maya Ziv, Patent License Drafting Considerations in Contemplation of M&A
    Carrie M. LeRoy
  • What’s New in the World of Standards-Essential Patents & RAND Licensing, and Implications for Established & Emerging Industries
    Rick C. Chang, Khue V. Hoang, Joseph Yang
  • Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents (June 5, 2018)
    Joseph Yang
  • What’s New in the World of Standards-Essential Patents & RAND Licensing, and Implications for Established & Emerging Industries (PowerPoint slides)
    Rick C. Chang, Joseph Yang, Khue V. Hoang
  • Mock Negotiation of a Patent License Agreement
    Nader A. Mousavi, Jake Handy, Joseph Yang
  • Sample Patent License and Assignment Agreement
    Nader A. Mousavi, Jake Handy, Joseph Yang

Presentation Material

  • Declaratory Judgment Actions After MedImmune
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Structuring the Patent License Agreement Grant
    Kent Richardson
  • Recent Developments in IP/Tech Law: 2017 in Review
    Joseph Yang
  • What’s New in the World of Standards-Essential Patents & RAND Licensing, and Implications for Established & Emerging Industries
    Rick C. Chang, Khue V. Hoang, Joseph Yang
  • Article - What’s New in the World of Standards-Essential Patents & RAND Licensing, and Implications for Established & Emerging Industries (Updated as of August 29, 2018)
    Rick C. Chang, Khue V. Hoang, Joseph Yang
  • Mock Negotiation of a Patent License Agreement
    Jake Handy, Nader A. Mousavi, Joseph Yang
Co-Chair(s)
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Joseph Yang ~ PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Speaker(s)
Suzanne Y. Bell ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Rick C. Chang ~ Morgan Franich Fredkin Siamas & Kays LLP
William H. Hamby ~ Corporate Counsel, Specialty Products Division, DowDuPont™
Jake Handy ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Winston E. Henderson ~ Vice President, General Counsel, Nano Terra, Inc.
Khue V. Hoang ~ Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Carrie M. LeRoy ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Meredith M. McKenzie ~ Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Juniper Networks, Inc.
Nader A. Mousavi ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Kent Richardson ~ Richardson Oliver Law Group
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

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


U.S. MCLE States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CPD Jurisdictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Other Credit Types

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Patent Licensing 2019 (San Francisco, CA) Sep. 13, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Patent Licensing 2019  
Advanced Patent Licensing 2018 Mark S. Holmes, PatentBridge LLC
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
 
Share
Email
Really just a top quality program with quality speakers.”
Richard Malagiere, The Law Offices of Richard Malagiere, P.C.


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

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

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