On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Understanding the Intellectual Property License 2018

Released on: Nov. 13, 2018
Running Time: 12:21:09
Licensing intellectual property can be a practical and efficient strategy for companies looking to expand into a new market, enhance an existing product line, reduce costs or accomplish other business goals. The IP under consideration to license could be a patent, copyright, trademark, software or any combination of them all. IP licensing is a practice that is increasingly common across industries and as the need for businesses to leverage IP continues knowing how to navigate and negotiate an IP license will remain a helpful skill that counsel representing the licensing parties must understand and develop.

This introductory course will give attendees a comprehensive review of the basic elements in designing licensing agreements for a variety of IP types. Our faculty will discuss the rationale for choosing licensing over other business options in a given context and explain key provisions and specific considerations when negotiating an IP license, along with special circumstances that may arise, such as any regulatory concerns, antitrust issues and also when negotiating an international IP license.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:21:09]

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

  • Introduction* [00:04:27]
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Trademark Licensing [01:04:51]
    Sarah Robertson
  • Copyright Licensing [01:02:02]
    Helene M. Freeman
  • Rights of Publicity and Entertainment Licensing [00:59:56]
    Christopher R. Chase
  • Patent and Technology Licensing [01:01:32]
    Eric Huang
  • Software Licensing and Open Source Licenses [01:01:32]
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Ethical Issues in Licensing [01:01:26]
    David Rabinowitz
  • International Considerations in Licensing [01:00:02]
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing [01:01:08]
    Willard K. Tom
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Licensing [01:01:33]
    Stuart M. Riback
  • License Drafting for Litigation [01:02:53]
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement [01:59:47]
    Ryan T. Colgan, Nicholas Vogt

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Copyright Licensing
    Helene M. Freeman
  • Copyright Licensing Fundamentals
    Cydney A. Tune
  • Licensing of Rights of Publicity and Other Entertainment Properties
    E. Leonard Rubin
  • Rights of Publicity: When and Why a License Is Required
    Christopher R. Chase
  • Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Patent and Technology Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Software License Agreement
    Joseph Yang
  • Margaret M. Duncan and Thomas DaMario, Patent and Technology Licensing
    Margaret M. Duncan
  • Topics Related to Software License Agreements (Revised and updated August 7, 2018)
    Stephen Gold
  • Open Source Licensing (August 2018)
    Jason S. Buttura, A. Clifford Allen
  • Champ W. Davis, Jr., Davis McGrath, LLC, Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
    Eugene F. Friedman
  • Kendra L. Basner and Cassidy E. Chivers, Alerts—California Adopts New Rules of Professional Conduct (June 12, 2018)
    Cassidy E. Chivers
  • Avoiding the Pitfalls in International Licensing
    Anne S. Jordan
  • International IP Licenses
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Antitrust and the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Application of Basic Antitrust Principles, The Licensing Journal (April 2016)
    Jeffery M. Cross
  • Update to Antitrust and the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Application of Basic Antitrust Principles
    Jeffery M. Cross
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing
    Willard K. Tom
  • Andrew E. Shipley, Eric A. Aaserud and Seth H. Locke, Government Issues in IP Licensing (November 2017)
    Eric A. Aaserud
  • Intellectual Property Licenses: The Impact of Bankruptcy
    Stuart M. Riback
  • Drafting for Litigation
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Intellectual Property Licensing
    Marcelo Halpern
  • Drafting for Litigation: Six Common Legal Issues That Can Complicate a Licensing Relationship
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Trademark Licensing
    Janet A. Marvel

Presentation Material

  • Trademark Licensing
    Sarah Robertson
  • Licensing Rights of Publicity
    Christopher R. Chase
  • Patent & Technology Licensing
    Eric Huang
  • Software Licensing and Open Source
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Negotiating Ethics - Cases and Rules
    David Rabinowitz
  • International IP Licenses
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing: Dealing with Competitors, Infringers, Licenses, the Agencies, and the Courts
    Willard K. Tom
  • Intellectual Property Licenses: The Impact of Bankruptcy
    Stuart M. Riback
  • When Good License Agreements Go Bad: Common Drafting Issues That Give Rise to Litigation
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement
    Ryan T. Colgan
  • Software License and Services Agreement (Annotated)
    Ryan T. Colgan, Nicholas Vogt
Chairperson(s)
Bruce R. Ewing ~ Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Speaker(s)
Lindsey J. Canning ~ White & Case LLP
Christopher R. Chase ~ Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Ryan T. Colgan ~ Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, NTT America, Inc.
Helene M. Freeman ~ Partner, Phillips Nizer LLP
Eric Huang ~ Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Jeffrey D. Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
David Rabinowitz ~ Moses & Singer LLP
Stuart M. Riback ~ Wilk Auslander LLP
Sarah Robertson ~ Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Willard K. Tom ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Nicholas Vogt ~ Associate General Counsel, Verizon
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.

 

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.