On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Understanding the Intellectual Property License 2017

Select a Location:

Companies continue turning to licensing because it offers valuable economic and strategic opportunities.  Licensing can be used to gain access to intellectual property at a lower cost than developing or purchasing intellectual property assets, and as a way of generating new sources of revenue out of existing intellectual property assets.  Virtually every business today must confront licensing issues and, therefore, a solid base of knowledge about licensing has never been more important for companies and their counsel. This introductory course will give you an overview of how to negotiate and draft effective license agreements, whether you are the licensor or licensee.  Experts in licensing will discuss different kinds of licensing agreements, and the business and legal issues related to them.  

Special Features

    • Instructive mock negotiation of a license agreement
    • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

Lecture Topics [Total time 00:13:15]

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

  • Introduction* [00:03:26]
    Susan Progoff
  • Trademark Licensing [01:05:45]
    Susan Progoff
  • Copyright Licensing [00:59:30]
    Barry I. Slotnick
  • Rights of Publicity and Entertainment Licensing [01:02:49]
    Christopher R. Chase
  • Patent and Technology Licensing [01:00:01]
    Kristin Neuman
  • Software Licensing and Open Source Licenses [01:04:26]
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Ethical Issues in Licensing [00:59:52]
    David Rabinowitz
  • International Considerations in Licensing [00:57:48]
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing [01:02:51]
    Willard K. Tom
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Licensing [01:00:44]
    Stuart M. Riback
  • License Drafting for Litigation [00:58:22]
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement [02:01:07]
    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
  • Trademark Licensing
    Janet A. Marvel
  • Trademark Licensing
    Susan Progoff
  • Trademark Licensing (August 10, 2017)
    Sally M. Abel
  • Core Concepts in Copyright Licensing
    Amanda B. Weare
  • Copyright Licensing
    Barry I. Slotnick
  • 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
  • Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe, and Kristina Dinerman Cooper, Celebrity Name and Likeness Licensing and the Right of Publicity
    Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe
  • Margaret M. Duncan and Thomas M. DaMario, Patent and Technology Licensing
    Margaret M. Duncan
  • The Patent and Technology License (August 11, 2017)
    Kristin Neuman
  • Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Patent and Technology Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Topics Related to Software License Agreements (July 2017)
    Stephen Gold
  • Software Licensing and Open Source (July 26, 2017)
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Open Source Licensing (July 2017)
    A. Clifford Allen, Jason S. Buttura
  • Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
    Champ W. Davis
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Ethical Issues in Licensing
    Wendy Wen Yun Chang
  • Risk Management Tips Based on the Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Verdict
    Wendy Wen Yun Chang
  • 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
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing
    Willard K. Tom
  • Andrew E. Shipley, Eric Aaserud, and Seth H. Locke, Government Issues in IP Licensing
    Andrew E. Shipley
  • Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights Under Government Contracts (PowerPoint slides)
    Andrew E. Shipley
  • Regulatory and Government Issues in IP Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    David S. Bloch
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Intellectual Property Licensing
    Marcelo Halpern
  • Intellectual Property Licenses: The Impact of Bankruptcy
    Stuart M. Riback
  • Drafting for Litigation: Six Common Legal Issues That Can Complicate a Licensing Relationship
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Drafting for Litigation (July 2017)
    Ira Jay Levy
  • H. Ward Classen, Software License and Services Agreement (Annotated)
    Nicholas J. Vogt, Ryan T. Colgan
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement
    John Shinn, Diana V. Sandoval, Karen Y. Spencer
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement (PowerPoint slides)
    Ryan T. Colgan, Nicholas J. Vogt

Presentation Material

  • Trademark Licensing
    Susan Progoff
  • Licensing Rights of Publicity
    Christopher R. Chase
  • The Patent and Technology License
    Kristin Neuman
  • Software Licensing and Open Source
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Negotiation Ethics – Cases and Rules
    David Rabinowitz
  • International IP Licenses
    Lindsey J. Canning
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing Dealing with Competitors, Infringers, Licensees, 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, Nicholas Vogt
Chairperson(s)
Susan Progoff ~ 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.
Bruce R. Ewing ~ Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Kristin Neuman ~ Executive Director, Biotechnology Licensing, MPEG LA, LLC
Jeffrey D. Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
David Rabinowitz ~ Moses & Singer LLP
Stuart M. Riback ~ Wilk Auslander LLP
Barry I. Slotnick ~ Loeb & Loeb 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.

 

Companies continue turning to licensing because it offers valuable economic and strategic opportunities.  Licensing can be used to gain access to intellectual property at a lower cost than developing or purchasing intellectual property assets, and as a way of generating new sources of revenue out of existing intellectual property assets.  Virtually every business today must confront licensing issues and, therefore, a solid base of knowledge about licensing has never been more important for companies and their counsel. This introductory course will give you an overview of how to negotiate and draft effective license agreements, whether you are the licensor or licensee.  Experts in licensing will discuss different kinds of licensing agreements, and the business and legal issues related to them.  

Lecture Topics [Total time 00:13:15]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:04:18]
    Joseph Yang
  • Trademark Licensing [01:05:16]
    Sally M. Abel
  • Copyright Licensing [00:59:51]
    Cydney A. Tune
  • Rights of Publicity and Entertainment Licensing [01:01:40]
    Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe
  • Patent and Technology Licensing [00:59:05]
    Joseph Yang
  • Software Licensing and Open Source Licenses [00:57:25]
    A. Clifford Allen, Jason Buttura
  • Ethical Issues in Licensing [01:01:20]
    Cassidy Chivers
  • International Considerations in Licensing [01:01:00]
    Robert Blamires
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing [00:59:30]
    Geoffrey Holtz
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Licensing [01:01:35]
    Lillian Stenfeldt
  • License Drafting for Litigation [01:00:05]
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Regulatory and Government Issues in IP Licensing [01:00:45]
    Andrew B. Grossman, Francesca Guerrero
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement [01:00:00]
    Karen Y. Spencer, Tina Soriano, Joseph Yang

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Trademark Licensing
    Janet A. Marvel
  • Trademark Licensing
    Susan Progoff
  • Trademark Licensing (August 10, 2017)
    Sally M. Abel
  • Core Concepts in Copyright Licensing
    Amanda B. Weare
  • Copyright Licensing
    Barry I. Slotnick
  • 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
  • Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe, and Kristina Dinerman Cooper, Celebrity Name and Likeness Licensing and the Right of Publicity
    Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe
  • Margaret M. Duncan and Thomas M. DaMario, Patent and Technology Licensing
    Margaret M. Duncan
  • The Patent and Technology License (August 11, 2017)
    Kristin Neuman
  • Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Patent and Technology Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Topics Related to Software License Agreements (July 2017)
    Stephen Gold
  • Software Licensing and Open Source (July 26, 2017)
    Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Open Source Licensing (July 2017)
    A. Clifford Allen, Jason S. Buttura
  • Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
    Champ W. Davis
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Ethical Issues in Licensing
    Wendy Wen Yun Chang
  • Risk Management Tips Based on the Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Verdict
    Wendy Wen Yun Chang
  • 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
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing
    Willard K. Tom
  • Andrew E. Shipley, Eric Aaserud, and Seth H. Locke, Government Issues in IP Licensing
    Andrew E. Shipley
  • Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights Under Government Contracts (PowerPoint slides)
    Andrew E. Shipley
  • Regulatory and Government Issues in IP Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    David S. Bloch
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Intellectual Property Licensing
    Marcelo Halpern
  • Intellectual Property Licenses: The Impact of Bankruptcy
    Stuart M. Riback
  • Drafting for Litigation: Six Common Legal Issues That Can Complicate a Licensing Relationship
    Bruce R. Ewing
  • Drafting for Litigation (July 2017)
    Ira Jay Levy
  • H. Ward Classen, Software License and Services Agreement (Annotated)
    Nicholas J. Vogt, Ryan T. Colgan
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement
    John Shinn, Diana V. Sandoval, Karen Y. Spencer
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement (PowerPoint slides)
    Nicholas J. Vogt, Ryan T. Colgan

Presentation Material


  • Trademark Licensing
    Sally M. Abel
  • Copyright Licensing Fundamentals
    Cydney A. Tune
  • Celebrity Licensing and the Right of Publicity
    Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe
  • Celebrity Licensing and the Right of Publicity - Handout
    Bryan Thompson, Danika Vittitoe
  • Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Open Source Licensing
    A. Clifford Allen, Jason Buttura
  • Ethical Issues In Licensing
    Cassidy Chivers
  • International IP Licenses
    Robert Blamires
  • Antitrust Issues in Licensing
    Geoffrey Holtz
  • Bankruptcy Issues in Licensing Agreements
    Lillian Stenfeldt
  • Drafting For Litigation
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Regulatory and Government Issues in IP Licensing
    Andrew B. Grossman, Francesca Guerrero
  • Mock Negotiation of a License Agreement
    Tina Soriano, Karen Y. Spencer, Joseph Yang
  • Software License Agreement - Handout
    Tina Soriano, Karen Y. Spencer, Joseph Yang
Chairperson(s)
Joseph Yang ~ PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Speaker(s)
Sally M. Abel ~ Fenwick & West LLP
A. Clifford Allen ~ Senior Attorney, Microsoft Corporation
Robert Blamires ~ Counsel, White & Case LLP
Jason Buttura ~ Senior Corporate Counsel, Open Source & Software, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cassidy Chivers ~ Partner, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Andrew B. Grossman ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
Francesca Guerrero ~ Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP
Geoffrey Holtz ~ Partner, Bingham McCutchen LLP
Ira Jay Levy ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Tina Soriano ~ Associate General Counsel – IP Licensing and Technology Transactions, Rambus Inc
Karen Y. Spencer ~ Retired, Global Counsel, Intellectual Property -Transactions & Licensing, Nike, Inc.
Lillian Stenfeldt ~ Rimon, P.C.
Bryan Thompson ~ Senior Counsel, Barnes and Thornburg
Cydney A. Tune ~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Danika Vittitoe ~ Senior Director, Business & Legal Affairs, Media & Content, Global Eagle Entertainment Inc.
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
“A very useful and informative training.”
Megan Chang, Jones Day

“Excellent program.  Loved the mock negotiation- very effective way to cover the material.”
Todd Gwillim, Caterpillar Inc.

“One of the most useful PLI programs I have attended.  Presentations and written materials were superior to PLI's normally excellent offerings.”

 “Great material.”

2016 Attendees


  • 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.