On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 2018

Released on: Feb. 1, 2018
Running Time: 06:27:56

From the physical world to the Internet, infringement of IP is a multi-billion dollar industry.  In-house and outside counsel need to know how best to protect their company’s or their client’s investments in IP.  To keep up with the rapidly evolving legal landscape in this field, companies need to be informed not only about the challenges they face, but also about the legal developments that affect how they do business.

Join our faculty of in-house counsel, outside private practitioners and federal government agency representatives to receive practical guidance and learn effective strategies for protection of IP rights.


Lecture Topics [Total time: 06:27:56]

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


  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:44]
    Kathleen E. McCarthy, Brian W. Brokate
  • Current Government IP Enforcement Programs [01:20:59]
    Angelo E.P. Mazza, Lesley Fair, John Zacharia
  • Copyright Enforcement Update [01:00:55]
    Bruce W. Baber
  • Trademark Enforcement Update [01:01:41]
    Siegrun D. Kane, Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • The Future of Patent Litigation: Impact of Recent Supreme Court Action and Proposed Legislation [00:59:45]
    Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, Sona De, Linda J. Thayer
  • IP Rights: Anticounterfeiting Update [00:59:15]
    Dawn Atlas, Brian W. Brokate
  • Ethics in USPTO Practice [01:00:37]
    William Covey

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Reporting Intellectual Property Crime: A Guide for Victims of Copyright Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, and Trade Secret Theft (Second Edition) (June 2016)
    John H. Zacharia
  • Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission Advertising Enforcement (October 1, 2017)
    Lesley Fair
  • Copyright Enforcement Update 2018: Varsity Brands, New Technologies, the DMCA, Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, Fair Use and More (December 1, 2017)
    Bruce W. Baber
  • PLI IP Enforcement Update 2018: Trademark Enforcement (October 20, 2017)
    Siegrun D. Kane, Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • D. Brian Kacedon and Kevin D. Rodkey, Impression Products v. Lexmark Intl (October 3, 2017)
    Erika Harmon Arner
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Prosecution First Blog
    Erika Harmon Arner
  • Elliot C. Cook, Daniel F. Klodowski and David C. Seastrunk, “Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics—September 1, 2017,” Finnegan AIA Blog (September 22, 2017), https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/america-invents-act/federal-circuitptab-appeal-statistics-august-1-2017-copy.html
    Erika Harmon Arner
  • Paula E. Miller, “Concerns Raised Regarding PTAB Rules on Joinder and Expanded Panels,” Finnegan Federal Circuit IP Blog (August 30, 2017), https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/federal-circuit-ip/concernsraised-regarding-ptab-rules-on-joinder-and-expandedpanels.html
    Erika Harmon Arner
  • TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S.____(2017)
    Sona De
  • Brian W. Brokate and Maja Szumarska, Anticounterfeiting Enforcement 2018: What Brands Should Consider When Developing Enforcement Strategies for the Year Ahead
    Brian W. Brokate
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct v. USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
    William Covey
  • Additional Ethics Reading Materials Relating to IP Enforcement
    Kathleen E. McCarthy

Presentation Material


  • Consumer Protection Developments for IP Attorneys: an FTC Staff Update
    Lesley Fair
  • Copyright Update
    Bruce W. Baber
  • IP Enforcement and Litigation 2018: Trademark Update
    Siegrun D. Kane
  • Trademark Enforcement: Litigation Strategies
    Kathleen E. McCarthy
  • The Future of Patent Litigation: Impact of Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Decisions
    Sona De, Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, Linda J. Thayer
  • Anticounterfeiting Enforcement 2018: What Brands Should Consider When Developing Enforcement Strategies for the Year Ahead
    Dawn Atlas, Brian W. Brokate
  • Professional Responsibility and Practice Before the USPTO
    William Covey
Chairperson(s)
Brian W. Brokate ~ Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Kathleen E. McCarthy ~ King & Spalding
Speaker(s)
Dawn Atlas ~ Vice President, Enforcement and Assistant General Counsel, Calvin Klein Inc.
Bruce W. Baber ~ King & Spalding
William Covey ~ Deputy General Counsel and Director for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Sona De ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Lesley Fair ~ Senior Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg ~ United States District Judge (Ret.), Hochberg ADR, LLC
Siegrun D. Kane ~ Kane Advisors, LLP
Angelo E.P. Mazza ~ Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Linda J. Thayer ~ Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett LLP
John H. Zacharia ~ Former Assistant Deputy Chief for Litigation, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
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

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 2019 (New York, NY) Jan. 17, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 2019  
Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 2018 Brian W. Brokate, Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Kathleen E. McCarthy, King & Spalding
 
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.