On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

IP Issues in Business Transactions 2018

Select a Location:

Attorneys confront intellectual property issues frequently in the context of a variety of corporate, commercial, and other business transactions. By attending this program, you will acquire, update or refine an in-depth understanding of IP considerations as they arise in business transactions.  The program will begin with a brief update of key developments, and will explore the strategic role of IP in a company and its business transactions.  Learn how to assess intellectual property as a strategic asset and how to monetize IP while avoiding costly mistakes. Expert faculty will also review joint development and shared intellectual property ventures, due diligence issues, and share best practices.

This program – essential for all IP transactional attorneys – will cover issues that may arise across patent, trademark, and copyright law.

Lecture Topics [Total time 00:13:45]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:24]
    Eric A. Prager, Steven I. Weisburd
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets [01:54:33]
    Andrew Baum (Ret.), Eric A. Prager, Maria A. Scungio, Steven I. Weisburd
  • Designing, Creating, and Pruning an IP Portfolio [01:15:27]
    Melvin C. Garner, Gail H. Zarick
  • Development and Implementation of an IP Licensing Program [01:00:42]
    Jim Lennon
  • Critical License Terms: A Clause-by-Clause Review [01:14:32]
    Steven I. Weisburd, Kenneth K. Cho, Eleanor M. Lackman, Jonathan M. Seiden
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP [01:00:11]
    Audra A. Dial, Angela J. Grayson, CIPP/US, CLP
  • IP Issues in International Business Transactions [01:02:16]
    Ricardo P. Fischer, Kenneth K. Cho, Zhun Lu, Norma Castaneda
  • Life Sciences Transactions [00:55:21]
    Marta E. Delsignore, Ph.D., Keith A. Zullow
  • Licensing and Bankruptcy Issues in IP Transactions [01:01:14]
    Debra A. Dandeneau, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Nuts and Bolts of Due Diligence [01:13:59]
    Jeffrey D. Neuburger
  • IP Issues for In-House Counsel [00:59:57]
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Joel Wolfson, Kim Youngberg, Steven I. Weisburd
  • Avoiding Ethics Issues in IP Transaction [01:00:22]
    Eric A. Prager

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Digital Exhaustion—New Law from the Old World, forthcoming in Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2018)
    Lothar Determann
  • Software Copyright’s Oracle From the Cloud, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 30, No. 1 (2015)
    David Nimmer, Lothar Determann
  • What Happens in the Cloud: Software as a Service and Copyrights, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 29, No. 2 (2014)
    Lothar Determann
  • Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, slip op. (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2017)
    Andrew Baum
  • Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2017)
    Andrew Baum
  • Top 10 Misconceptions About Copyright
    Andrew Baum
  • Transfers of Copyrights—The Basics
    Andrew Baum
  • Designing, Creating and Managing an IP Portfolio
    Melvin C. Garner
  • Essential Elements of the License Agreement
    Eric A. Prager
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP: Relevant Cases
    Angela J. Grayson, Audra A. Dial
  • Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114–153 (May 11, 2016)
    Angela J. Grayson
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP: U.S. and International Patents
    Angela J. Grayson
  • Open Cars, forthcoming in Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 32 (2018)
    Bruce Perens, Lothar Determann
  • The Interplay Between Intellectual Property Rights and Bankruptcy (November 13, 2017)
    Debra A. Dandeneau
  • “Blockchain: The Key to True Cybersecurity?”, N.Y.L.J. (June 5, 2017)
    Jeffrey D. Neuburger
  • Sample Documents for In House Counsel
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Joel R. Wolfson, Kim Youngberg, Eric A. Prager
  • Ethics Issues in Intellectual Property Practice
    Eric A. Prager

Presentation Material


  • Copyrights in Business Transactions
    Andrew Baum (Ret.)
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Eric A. Prager
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Maria A. Scungio
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Steven I. Weisburd
  • Designing, Creating, and Pruning an IP Portfolio
    Melvin C. Garner
  • Designing, Creating and Managing
    Gail H. Zarick
  • ADMINISTERING AN IP LICENSING PROGRAM (Handout)
    Jim Lennon
  • Development and Implementation of an IP Licensing Program
    Jim Lennon
  • Critical License Terms: A Clause-by-Clause Review
    Kenneth K. Cho, Eleanor M. Lackman, Jonathan M. Seiden, Steven I. Weisburd
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP
    Audra A. Dial, Angela J. Grayson, CIPP/US, CLP
  • Life Sciences Transactions
    Marta E. Delsignore, Ph.D., Keith A. Zullow
  • Life Sciences Transactions (Handout)
    Marta E. Delsignore, Ph.D., Keith A. Zullow
  • Licensing and Bankruptcy Issues in IP Transactions
    Debra A. Dandeneau, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Nuts and Bolts of Due Diligence
    Jeffrey D. Neuburger
  • Avoiding Ethics Issues in IP Transactions
    Eric A. Prager
Chairperson(s)
Steven I. Weisburd ~ Arent Fox LLP
Co-Chair(s)
Eric A. Prager ~ Venable LLP
Speaker(s)
Andrew Baum (Ret.) ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Norma Castaneda ~ Global IP Manager , Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Kenneth K. Cho ~ Kim & Chang
Debra Dandeneau ~ PARTNER, Grant Thornton LLP
Marta E. Delsignore, Ph.D. ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Audra A. Dial ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Ricardo P. Fischer ~ Partner, Arent Fox LLP
Melvin C. Garner ~ Leason Ellis LLP
Angela J. Grayson, CIPP/US, CLP ~ Principal Member, Precipice IP, PLLC
Eleanor M. Lackman ~ Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP
Jim Lennon ~ Devlin Law Firm LLC
Zhun Lu ~ Partner, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Jeffrey D. Neuburger ~ Proskauer Rose LLP
Jeffrey D. Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Maria A. Scungio ~ Shareholder, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
Jonathan M. Seiden ~ Vice President & Counsel, WME/IMG
Joel Wolfson ~ Director and Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Kim Youngberg ~ General Counsel, Screenvision Media
Gail H. Zarick ~ IP Counsel, IBM Security Division, IBM Corporation
Keith A. Zullow ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
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:  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 “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.

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.

 

Attorneys confront intellectual property issues frequently in the context of a variety of corporate, commercial, and other business transactions. By attending this program, you will acquire, update or refine an in-depth understanding of IP considerations as they arise in business transactions.  The program will begin with a brief update of key developments, and will explore the strategic role of IP in a company and its business transactions.  Learn how to assess intellectual property as a strategic asset and how to monetize IP while avoiding costly mistakes. Expert faculty will also review joint development and shared intellectual property ventures, due diligence issues, and share best practices.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:48:11]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:06:56]
    Karen N. Ballack, Dr. Lothar Determann
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets [01:48:07]
    Karen N. Ballack, Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear, Jason D. Kipnis, Dr. Lothar Determann
  • Designing, Creating, and Pruning an IP Portfolio [01:16:08]
    Karen N. Ballack, Ray Strimaitis
  • Development and Implementation of an IP Licensing Program [00:57:22]
    Mary A. Fuller
  • Critical License Terms: A Clause-by-Clause Review [01:18:01]
    Christian H. Nadan, Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear, Thomas F. Villeneuve, Aaron P. Rubin
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP [01:01:25]
    Suzanne Y. Bell
  • IP Issues in International Business Transactions [01:00:16]
    Kai Westerwelle, Volha Samasiuk, Jiarui Liu, Dr. Lothar Determann
  • Life Sciences Transactions [01:00:52]
    Deborah Fishman
  • Licensing and Bankruptcy Issues in IP Transactions [01:01:16]
    Debra A. Dandeneau, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Nuts and Bolts of Due Diligence [01:14:11]
    Heather J. Meeker
  • IP Issues for In-House Counsel [01:01:42]
    Martin J. Collins, Marjorie M. Goux, Ed Medlin, Kevin P. Smith
  • Avoiding Ethics Issues in IP Transactions [01:01:55]
    Eric A. Prager

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


COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Digital Exhaustion—New Law from the Old World, forthcoming in Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2018)
    Lothar Determann
  • Software Copyright’s Oracle From the Cloud, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 30, No. 1 (2015)
    David Nimmer, Lothar Determann
  • What Happens in the Cloud: Software as a Service and Copyrights, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 29, No. 2 (2014)
    Lothar Determann
  • Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, slip op. (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2017)
    Andrew Baum
  • Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2017)
    Andrew Baum
  • Top 10 Misconceptions About Copyright
    Andrew Baum
  • Transfers of Copyrights—The Basics
    Andrew Baum
  • Designing, Creating and Managing an IP Portfolio
    Melvin C. Garner
  • Essential Elements of the License Agreement
    Eric A. Prager
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP: Relevant Cases
    Angela J. Grayson, Audra A. Dial
  • Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114–153 (May 11, 2016)
    Angela J. Grayson
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP: U.S. and International Patents
    Angela J. Grayson
  • Open Cars, forthcoming in Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 32 (2018)
    Bruce Perens, Lothar Determann
  • The Interplay Between Intellectual Property Rights and Bankruptcy (November 13, 2017)
    Debra A. Dandeneau
  • “Blockchain: The Key to True Cybersecurity?”, N.Y.L.J. (June 5, 2017)
    Jeffrey D. Neuburger
  • Sample Documents for In House Counsel
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Eric A. Prager, Joel R. Wolfson, Kim Youngberg
  • Ethics Issues in Intellectual Property Practice
    Eric A. Prager

Presentation Material


  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Karen N. Ballack, Dr. Lothar Determann, Jason D. Kipnis, Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Jason D. Kipnis
  • New IP Issues Impacting Business Transactions: Copyrights, Trademarks, Domain Names, Patents and Trade Secrets
    Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear
  • Trade Secrets in Business Transactions
    Dr. Lothar Determann
  • Designing, Creating, and Pruning an IP Portfolio
    Karen N. Ballack, Ray Strimaitis
  • Development and Implementation of an IP Licensing Program
    Mary A. Fuller
  • Development and Implementation of an IP Licensing Program (Handout)
  • Shared or Jointly Developed IP
    Suzanne Y. Bell
  • IP Issues in International Business Transactions
    Dr. Lothar Determann, Jiarui Liu, Volha Samasiuk, Kai Westerwelle
  • Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals (Handout)
    Deborah Fishman
  • Life Sciences Transactions
    Deborah Fishman
  • Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals (Handout)
    Deborah Fishman
  • Licensing and Bankruptcy Issues in IP Transactions
    Debra A. Dandeneau, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Nuts and Bolts of Due Diligence
    Heather J. Meeker
  • IP Issues for In-House Counsel
    Martin J. Collins , Marjorie M. Goux, Ed Medlin, Kevin P. Smith
  • Avoiding Ethics Issues in IP Transactions
    Eric A. Prager
Co-Chair(s)
Karen N. Ballack ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Dr. Lothar Determann ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Speaker(s)
Suzanne Y. Bell ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Martin J. Collins ~ Senior Vice President, Corporate Development, Legal & Compliance, QuinStreet
Debra Dandeneau ~ PARTNER, Grant Thornton LLP
Deborah Fishman ~ Arnold & PorterLLP
Mary A. Fuller ~ General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ASSIA, Inc.
Marjorie M. Goux ~ Chief Legal Counsel, Clif Bar & Company
Jason D. Kipnis ~ WilmerHale
Jiarui Liu ~ Assistant Professor of Law Director of International Relations for LLM Programs, University of San Francisco School of Law
Ed Medlin ~ Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Maxim Integrated
Heather J. Meeker ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Christian H. Nadan ~ SVP & General Counsel, Actian Corporation
Jeffrey D. Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Eric A. Prager ~ Venable LLP
Aaron P. Rubin ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
Volha Samasiuk ~ Senior Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary, Wargaming (USA), Inc.
Kevin P. Smith ~ VP, Associate General Counsel, Flexion Therapeutics, Inc.
Ray Strimaitis ~ Vice President, Corporate Development & Global Strategy, AST
Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear ~ Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Thomas F. Villeneuve ~ Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP
Kai Westerwelle ~ Partner, Taylor Wessing (US) 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.

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 “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.

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

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

IP Issues in Business Transactions 2018 Steven I Weisburd, Arent Fox LLP
Eric A Prager, K&L Gates LLP
Karen N Ballack, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Lothar Determann, Baker & McKenzie LLP
 
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.