On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2017

Released on: Oct. 8, 2017
Running Time: 14:39:15

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, providing 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; patent exhaustion and licensing issues; trade secrets; the right of publicity with respect to copyright law; 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.

You will learn:

  •  The latest changes in the law of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets
  • Recent developments in privacy law
  • An update of trademark law
  • Significant trade secret developments
  • Copyright issues in the fashion industry

Special features:

  • In-house panel will provide guidance on topics of current interest
  • Four separate breakout sessions
  • Complete overview of IP law
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

This program is designed for general practitioners, intellectual property attorneys, in-house counsel and anyone who needs a comprehensive update on the major areas of intellectual property law.

Lecture Topics [Total time 14:39:15]

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

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:04:40]
    David Bender
  • Privacy and Data Protection Law Developments 2017 [01:06:16]
    David Bender
  • DMCA Section 512: Are The Online Safe Harbors Becoming Less Safe? [00:55:01]
    Raymond T. Nimmer
  • Trademark Hot Topics [01:00:08]
    Siegrun D. Kane
  • Breakout Session - Copyright [01:30:56]
    William A. Tanenbaum, William Sloan Coats, Benjamin Hershkowitz
  • Breakout Session - Licensing [01:32:00]
    Charan J. Sandhu, Mark S. Holmes, Lindsey J. Canning
  • Breakout Session - Trademark [01:29:52]
    Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew, Brian W. Brokate, Jonathan E. Moskin
  • Breakout Session - Patent [01:29:48]
    Edwin Wheeler, Robert Greene Sterne, Joseph P. Lavelle
  • Current Developments in Publicity Rights: Balancing First Amendment Interests [01:00:05]
    Lateef Mtima
  • How the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law Will Affect Your Business [01:00:37]
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Contractual Limits on IP Licensees and Customers [01:01:07]
    Robert P. Taylor
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel [01:29:56]
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Leslie Fischer, Ph.D., Joel Wolfson, Gail H. Zarick
  • Critical Ethics Issues for the IP Lawyer [00:58:49]
    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 Developments—2017 (June 30, 2017)
    David Bender
  • Online Providers, Facilitators and Owners: Is the Balance Changing? (July 1, 2017)
    Raymond T. Nimmer
  • Trademark Hot Topics (June 30, 2017)
    Siegrun D. Kane, Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • Current Issues in Indian IP Licensing
    Pravin Anand, Charan J. Sandhu, Alexa Rozell
  • Current Issues in Chinese IP Licensing
    Gordon Gao, Alexa Rozell, Charan J. Sandhu
  • Current Issues in Japanese IP Licensing
    Kensuke Tsujimoto, Alexa Rozell, Charan J. Sandhu, Kenji Tosako
  • Current Issues in South Korean IP Licensing
    Alexa Rozell, Kee Jeong Kim, Charan J. Sandhu
  • Mark S. Holmes, Ch. 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms (2nd Edition) (October 2013)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • EU IP Licenses
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Addressing Legal Risks in Health Care IT Contracts
    Randal Stempler, William A. Tanenbaum
  • IP Traps in Joint Development Agreements
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • The “Internet of Things” Should Be the “Security of Things”
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Lois F. Herzeca and Howard S. Hogan, Ch. 4: Copyrights, Fashion Law and Business: Brands & Retailers (September 2013)
    Howard S. Hogan
  • Embedded Software and Copyright
    Devin R. Coats, William Sloan Coats
  • A Unified Patent Court for Europe—Coming Soon? (July 31, 2017)
    Edwin Wheeler
  • Ch. 2: New Global Patent Landscape, Patent Office Litigation
    Robert Greene Sterne
  • Patent Venue After TC Heartland (June 30, 2017)
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • Recent Developments in Trademark Jurisprudence: Pitfalls and Lessons for Litigating Lanham Act Cases
    Douglas (Chip) Rettew, Bobby Ghajar
  • Trade Dress: Recent Developments in Case Law (July 14, 2017)
    Brian W. Brokate, Maja Szumarska
  • The KKK Took My Trademark Away: Culture Wars and Trademark Law Meet in the Supreme Court’s Decision on Disparaging Marks
    Jonathan E. Moskin
  • How the Lanham Act Provoked a Unanimous Ruling by SCOTUS on Free Speech: The Aftermath of the Slants and the Redskins Cases (June 28, 2017)
    Anne Hiaring Hocking
  • Mapping the Parameters of the Right Publicity Rights: Identifying and Balancing Competing First Amendment Interests
    Lateef Mtima
  • Trade Secrets Law: The Year in Review 2017
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Patent Exhaustion 2017: Ageless Wisdom from the 17th Century
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Obvious-Type Double Patenting: The Creep of Gilead
    Leslie Fischer
  • Frequently Asked Questions Regarding 23 NYCRR Part 500
    Joel R. Wolfson
  • Ethical Issues in Intellectual Property Practice: Emerging Issues in Conflicts and Disqualification; Technology Problems
    Steven C. Bennett

Presentation Material


  • Privacy and Data Protection Law Developments 2017
    David Bender
  • DMCA Section 512: Are The Online Safe Harbors Becoming Less Safe?
    Raymond T. Nimmer
  • Trademark Hot Topics
    Siegrun D. Kane
  • Copyright in Embedded Software
    William Sloan Coats
  • Copyright in the Fashion Industry
    Benjamin Hershkowitz
  • Internet-Related IP Issues
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Licensing in Asia
    Charan J. Sandhu
  • Licensing in the EU
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Licensing in the U.S.
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Disparagement
    Jonathan E. Moskin
  • Developments in European Patent Enforcement
    Edwin Wheeler
  • Landmines to Look For in Trademark Enforcement
    Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew
  • Latest Developments in the Protection of Trade Dress
    Brian W. Brokate
  • Patent Venue Developments
    Joseph P. Lavelle
  • PTAB Developments
    Robert Greene Sterne
  • How the Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law Will Affect Your Business
    Victoria A. Cundiff
  • Contractual Limits on IP Licensees and Customers
    Robert P. Taylor
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Leslie Fischer, Ph.D.
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Joel Wolfson
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Gail H. Zarick
  • The Implications of Intellectual Property Issues for Corporate Counsel
    Gail H. Zarick
  • Critical Ethics Issues for the IP Lawyer
    Steven C. Bennett
Co-Chair(s)
David Bender ~ Adjunct Professor, University of Houston Law Center, The Law Office of David Bender
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
Speaker(s)
Steven C. Bennett ~ Park Jensen Bennett LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
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
Leslie Fischer, Ph.D. ~ Principal Patent Attorney, I&D, NS, Ophtha Patent Group, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Benjamin Hershkowitz ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Siegrun D. Kane ~ Kane Advisors LLP
Joseph P. Lavelle ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Jonathan E. Moskin ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Lateef Mtima ~ Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; Director, Howard University School of Law
Raymond T. Nimmer ~ Leonard H. Childs Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
Douglas A. (Chip) Rettew ~ Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett LLP
Charan J. Sandhu ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Robert Greene Sterne ~ Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
William A. Tanenbaum ~ Arent Fox LLP
Edwin Wheeler ~ Wheeler IP Law
Joel Wolfson ~ Director and Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Gail H. Zarick ~ IP Counsel, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CPD Jurisdictions

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

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

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

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

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

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


Other Credit Types

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2018 (San Francisco, CA) Oct. 22 - 23, 2018
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2018 (New York, NY) Oct. 1 - 2, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2018  
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2017 Robert P Taylor, RPT Legal Strategies PC
David Bender, The Law Office of David Bender
 
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2016 Robert P Taylor, RPT Legal Strategies PC
David Bender, The Law Office of David Bender
 
Share
Email

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

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

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