On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

Released on: May. 3, 2017
Running Time: 12:15:25

The Institute is designed to be of ultimate practice value to all three subgroups in the patent law community: patent prosecutors, patent litigators, and strategic/transactional lawyers.

Plenary sessions include the following updated sessions:

  • The current state of patent assertion entities as viewed by the Federal Trade Commission and others
  • Federal judges from key patent venues provide insights on patent litigation
  • The practice impact of the America Invents Act, and recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions
  • Corporate counsel discuss critical issues that keep them awake at night
  • Practitioners and PTAB judges provide guidance on PTAB trial proceedings and parallel litigation
  • Prosecution "safe harbors" for computer methods and medical therapies in view of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions

The Breakout sessions recorded for the 2017 on-demand include:

Prosecution Breakout Track: Three sessions focused on the latest USPTO rule making efforts. Staying current with the rule makers, Priority fixing, ePetition filing, PPH and other ways to speed progress through the USPTO labyrinth! How will "regime change" affect the USPTO in the near and medium term? Are goals and/or methods changing?
And, do not forget, the USPTO is increasingly all about the Supreme Court and its increasing interest in patent system oversight. Ongoing (hopefully more nearly incremental) change at the USPTO is what we can expect. Are software-implemented methods making a comeback via computer-centric applications? Do the various Guidelines adequately reflect reality - or some USPTO variation of the law? Is the CAFC getting a "handle" on how to implement Supreme Court decisions? Come to our USPTO intensive breakouts for Chemical, Bio, and Software Practice and find out!

Special Feature:

  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

Patent litigators, patent prosecutors and patent transactional lawyers, both in-house and outside counsel, should not miss PLI’s Patent Law Institute.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:15:25]

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


  • Program Overview* [00:06:22]
    Scott M. Alter, Douglas R. Nemec, John M. White
  • Featured Speaker: Election Reflection - and What It Means at the USPTO [01:03:54]
    John Cabeca
  • Major Court Decisions of the Past Year and Prognostications for the Future… [00:59:44]
    Prof. Mark A. Lemley
  • The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Turns Five [01:00:45]
    Leslie M. Spencer, Brent K. Yamashita, Hon. Timothy J. Goodson
  • Breakout: Prosecution - USPTO Rules I: Rulemaking and Quality Initiatives [01:00:09]
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Breakout: Prosecution - USPTO Rules II: Prosecution Related Actions [01:01:16]
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Breakout: Prosecution - Software/EE: Are We There, Yet? [01:00:15]
    Katherine Gaudry, Thomas D. Franklin
  • Breakout: Prosecution - Recent Developments in Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents [00:59:54]
    MJ Edwards, Craig A. McRobbie
  • Breakout: Prosecution - USPTO Guidelines and PTAB Decisions for Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents [00:59:46]
    MJ Edwards, Craig A. McRobbie
  • Breakout: Prosecution - Design Patents: U.S. and International Protection [01:03:20]
    Tracy-Gene G. Durkin
  • Halo and Its Effect on Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages [00:59:40]
    Scott M. Alter, Jon R. Trembath, Robert Glance
  • Corporate Counsel Roundtable: What’s Keeping Corporate Counsel Awake at Night [01:00:00]
    David T. Dutcher, Matthew Sarboraria, Angie M. Hankins, Dana S. Rao
  • Ethics and Malpractice in Patent Prosecution and Litigation [01:00:20]
    Prof. David Hricik

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Patent Quality Forum Series, United States Patent and Trademark Office (November 3–16, 2016)
    John M. White
  • Recent Developments in Patent Law (Fall 2016): Updated Through October 17, 2016
    Mark A. Lemley, Madeleine Laupheimer, James Yoon
  • Patent Law in 2016: Seeking Clarity in the Wake of Reform (January 20, 2017)
    Rahul Sarkar, So Yeon Choe, John Padro, Scott T. Weingaertner
  • U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit 2016 Cases Affecting Post Grant Practice
    Lissi Mojica
  • Outline: The PTAB Turns Five (January 13, 2017)
    Andrew Sutton, Henry Huang, Leslie M. Spencer, Nicholas Evoy, Gabrielle E. Higgins
  • Successful Strategies for Avoiding Institution of an Inter Partes Review
    Denis J. Sullivan
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board Statistics (November 30, 2016) (PowerPoint slides)
    Matthew Clements, Brian P. Murphy
  • An Overview of Section 337 Litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (January 26, 2017)
    Caryn L. Cross, Gurtej Singh, Jonathan D. Baker
  • Section 337 Actions in the ITC (PowerPoint slides)
    John T. Moehringer
  • 37 CFR Part 1, Revision of the Duty to Disclose Information in Patent Applications and Reexamination Proceedings, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 209 (Friday, October 28, 2016)
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable Event on Leveraging Electronic Resources to Retrieve Information from Applicant’s Other Applications and Streamline Patent Issuance, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • 37 CFR Parts 1, 41, and 42, Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2017, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Evolving Programs of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, United States Patent and Trademark Office
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Strategic Intellectual Property Licensing: Avoiding Pitfalls in View of Recent Case Law Developments
    Paul A. Ragusa
  • The Dangers of “Judicial” Patent Reform
    Asim Bhansali
  • Request for Comments Regarding the Continuation of the Accelerated Examination Program, Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 8 (Tuesday, January 12, 2017)
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • EFS-Web Quick Start Guide: Application Data Sheet to Update and/or Correct Information (April 12, 2016)
    Robert J. Spar, Brian Hanlon
  • USPTO Patent Application Initiatives Timeline
    Robert J. Spar, Brian Hanlon
  • A Unified Framework for RAND and Other Reasonable Royalties
    Richard J. Gilbert, Jorge L. Contreras
  • Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (January 12, 2017)
    Frances Marshall
  • Managing IP Litigation
    Diana Luo
  • A Guide to Software Patent Eligibility at the Federal Circuit (November 20, 2016)
    Eugene R. Quinn
  • Amendments Before the EPO
    Marco Lissandrini
  • Patenting Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe (January 12, 2017)
    Holm Schwarze
  • What, Where, and When to File: Critical Threshold Issues in Global Patent Prosecution
    Lawrence T. Welch
  • What, Where, When, and How to File: Critical Threshold Issues in Global Patent Prosecution (PowerPoint slides)
    Lawrence T. Welch
  • Developments in Spoliation Case Law Since the 2015 Amendments to F.R.C.P. 37(e)
    Andrew D. Gish, Marti A. Johnson
  • Hour 1—Recent Developments in Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents (January 17, 2017)
    Gleb Savych, Chad Rink, Craig A. McRobbie, Shawn Hamidinia, John Heithaus
  • Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study
    Suzanne Drennon Munck
  • The Operating Company—NPE Relationships (PowerPoint slides)
    Linda K. Biel
  • Patent Infringement Remedies—An Overview and Update
    L. Scott Oliver, Alisa Levine Knapp, Ranjini Acharya, Dawn Rice Hall
  • Hour 2—USPTO Guidelines and PTAB Decisions for Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents (January 17, 2017)
    Gleb Savych, Gary Juskowiak, Kirsten Smulovitz
  • #AliceStorm—Patent Eligibility Forecast: Dark Skies Continue, Possible Clearing in the Future (January 13, 2017)
    Robert R. Sachs
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International and CLS Service Ltd., No. 13-298 (S. Ct. January 28, 2014)
    Marian Underweiser
  • Outline: Trends and Trajectories in Life Sciences Litigation (January 13, 2017)
    Douglas R. Nemec
  • Life Sciences Litigation: Trends and Trajectories (PowerPoint slides)
    Douglas R. Nemec
  • Design Patents: Another Way to Look at Software Protection (January 13, 2017)
    Tracy-Gene G. Durkin
  • Effective Continuation Practice for Patent Portfolio Development (January 25, 2016)
    Michael Moore
  • Drafting and Claim Developments for Building a Patent Portfolio (January 25, 2016)
    Michael Moore
  • Halo and Its Aftermath—What’s Changed for Willful Infringement
    Scott M. Alter, Jon R. Trembath
  • Keys to Leveraging Intellectual Property Today and Getting Sleep
    David M. Shofi
  • Ethics and Malpractice in Patent Prosecution and Litigation
    David Hricik

Presentation Material


  • Featured Speaker: Election Reflection - and What It Means at the USPTO
    John Cabeca
  • Recent Developments in Patent Law (Spring 2017)
    Prof. Mark A. Lemley
  • The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Turns Five
    Hon. Timothy J. Goodson
  • The PTAB Turns Five
    Leslie M. Spencer
  • An Overview of Section 337 Litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission
    Jonathan D. Baker
  • Hot Topics in Technology Transfer and Licensing
    Eliot D. Williams
  • PTO Rules I & II - Rulemaking and Quality Initiatives, Prosecution Related Actions & Tips
    Brian Hanlon, Robert J. Spar
  • Patent Litigation Reform
    Asim Bhansali
  • Recent Developments in FRAND Litigation
    Prof. Jorge L. Contreras
  • Standards, Patents, and Antitrust: Year in Review
    Gil Ohana
  • Impact of Global Economies on Innovation and Commerce
    Denise M. Kettelberger, Ph.D.
  • Impact of Global Economies on Patenting of High Tech Innovation
    Denise M. Kettelberger, Ph.D.
  • Managing IP Litigation
    Diana Luo
  • Patenting Software Inventions: Empirical Assessments and Practical Strategies
    Thomas D. Franklin, Katherine Gaudry
  • Seeking the Gold (Standard): Amendments Before EPO
    Marco Lissandrini
  • Patent Aggregation Entities, Standards and Patent Pools
    Judson Cary
  • Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study
    Suzanne Drennon Munck
  • Recent Developments in Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents - Hour 1
    MJ Edwards, Craig A. McRobbie
  • The Operating Company – NPE relationships
    Linda K. Biel
  • #AliceStorm - Patent Eligibility Forecast: Dark Skies Continue, Possible Clearing in the Future
    Robert R. Sachs
  • Determining "Damages Adequate to Compensate for the Infringement"
    Drew D. Mooney, L. Scott Oliver
  • Recent Developments in Chemical, Pharma and Bio Patents - Hour 2
    MJ Edwards, Craig A. McRobbie
  • Design Patents: U.S. and International Protection
    Tracy-Gene G. Durkin
  • Life Sciences Litigation: Trends and Trajectories
    Douglas R. Nemec
  • Halo and its Aftermath – What’s Changed for Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages
    Scott M. Alter, Robert Glance, Jon R. Trembath
  • Ethics & Malpractice in Prosecution & Litigation
    Prof. David Hricik
Co-Chair(s)
Scott M. Alter ~ Lathrop Gage LLP
Douglas R. Nemec ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
John M. White ~ Director, Soryn IP Group; Berenato & White, LLC
Moderator(s)
Marti A. Johnson ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Speaker(s)
Jonathan D. Baker ~ Farney Daniels PC
Asim Bhansali ~ Keker & Van Nest LLP
Linda K. Biel ~ Senior Vice President, Business Development, Allied Security Trust
John Cabeca ~ US Patent and Trademark Office
Judson Cary ~ Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, CableLabs
Prof. Jorge L. Contreras ~ Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. Draeger ~ Vice President, Director, Intel Patent Group, Intel Corporation
Tracy-Gene G. Durkin ~ Director, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
David T. Dutcher ~ Assistant General Counsel, IP, Western Digital
MJ Edwards ~ Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property, Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Thomas D. Franklin ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Katherine Gaudry ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Robert Glance ~ Vice President and Senior Counsel, Wells Fargo
Hon. Timothy J. Goodson ~ Administrative Patent Judge, US Patent & Trademark Office
Angie M. Hankins ~ Director of Strategy; Senior Investment & IP Counsel, Samsung Strategy and Innovation
Brian Hanlon ~ Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Prof. David Hricik ~ Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law
Prof. Mark A. Lemley ~ William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Marco Lissandrini ~ Bugnion S.p.A
Diana Luo ~ Senior Associate General Counsel, Walmart Global eCommerce
Kevin McLintock ~ Director, Worldwide Patent and IP Strategy, Logitech Inc
Craig A. McRobbie ~ Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Drew D. Mooney ~ Managing Director, FTI Consulting Inc
Michael Moore ~ Director, Product Legal, Pure Storage
Suzanne Drennon Munck ~ Deputy Director, Office of Policy Planning; Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property, Federal Trade Commission
Gil Ohana ~ Senior Director, Antitrust and Competition, Cisco Systems, Inc.
L. Scott Oliver ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Dana S. Rao ~ V.P. IP & Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.
Robert R. Sachs ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Matthew Sarboraria ~ Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Oracle
George Simion ~ NetApp Inc
Robert J. Spar ~ Patent Prosecution and Practice Specialist, Director (Ret.) OPLA, USPTO, Director (Ret.) Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Leslie M. Spencer ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Jon R. Trembath ~ Lathrop Gage LLP
Eliot D. Williams ~ Baker Botts LLP
Brent K. Yamashita ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
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

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Patent Law Institute (11th Annual) Scott M Alter, Lathrop & Gage LLP
Douglas R Nemec, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
John M White, Berenato & White, LLC
 
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.