On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2017

Released on: Mar. 21, 2017
Running Time: 15:00:14

Intellectual property licensing continues to grow increasingly complex.  The legal, regulatory and technical landscape is constantly evolving.  Building and maintaining a successful and effective practice requires that practitioners stay sharp and current in a wide variety of key areas. Whether utilized to develop technology, expand or create market opportunities, or generate returns from existing assets, managing complex licensing transactions requires a broad and varied toolkit.  Additionally, whether licensing patents, copyrights, trade secrets or trademarks, the ability to structure, draft and negotiate complex license agreements is critical to a successful transaction. This program is designed to address the more complex and practical issues that arise in drafting and negotiating IP licenses, as well as tips for specific industries.

You will learn:

  • Best practices for patent and technology licensing
  • Pointers for strategic alliances and other joint development agreements
  • Guidance on copyright, content, and trademark licensing
  • Software licensing and open source issues
  • Navigating issues in life sciences licensing
  • Mastering effective negotiation strategies
  • Addressing international licensing issues
  • Practice tips for rights of publicity licensing
  • Accounting for litigation risks
  • Managing indemnification issues
  • Special considerations raised by cloud computing
  • Issues surrounding the licensing of Big Data

Special Features

  • In-depth panel discussion of a complex technology or content license
  • Breakouts to meet your practice needs
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit


This advanced program is focused on those who already have experience in the substantive area of intellectual property law, and who devote a substantial amount of their practice to licensing.

Lecture Topics [Total time 15:00:14]

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


  • Introduction* [00:05:29]
    Joseph Yang, Marcelo Halpern, Ira Jay Levy
  • Patent and Technology Licensing [01:03:59]
    Joseph Yang
  • Copyright, Content and Trademark Licensing [01:15:21]
    Oliver Herzfeld, Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Software Licensing [00:59:57]
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Analysis of a Content License Agreement [01:00:26]
    Kenneth M. Kaufman, Tucker McCrady, Jonathan Sirota
  • Analysis of a Technology License Agreement [01:00:11]
    Melvin C. Garner, Mark S. Holmes, Gail H. Zarick
  • Rights of Publicity Licensing [00:56:49]
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Licensing Issues in the Life Sciences Industry [01:00:27]
    Scott J. Catlin, Lauren Rabinovic, Jennifer S. Yoon
  • Ethical Considerations in Licensing [01:01:33]
    David Rabinowitz
  • Party Disputes and Licensing: Litigation and Case Law Update for Licensing Lawyers; Indemnification [01:32:21]
    Ira Jay Levy, Eleanor M. Yost
  • Licensing: Open Source, Cloud Computing, Big Data [01:29:56]
    Paul H. Arne, Peter J. Kinsella, Raymond R. Ferrell
  • Strategic Alliances and Other Joint Development Agreements [01:00:28]
    Joseph Yang
  • International Licensing -- Asia & Europe [01:33:01]
    Grace L. Pan, Jeremy Schrire
  • Negotiation Skills and Tactics [01:00:16]
    Marcelo Halpern

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Avoiding Common Mistakes in Patent and Technology Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Advanced Trademark Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Tiki Dare
  • Copyright and Content Licensing
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Advanced Business Issues in Trademark Licensing
    Paula Jill Krasny
  • Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms; Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Chapter 17 (PLI–11/16, Second Edition)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Software Licenses: The Cure for Lazy Patents (PowerPoint slides)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Content License Agreement
    Kenneth M. Kaufman, Eric A. Prager
  • Theme Park License
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Amended and Restated Internet Game Development Agreement
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Co-Production Agreement (February 24, 1997)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Specimen Provisions from Technology License Agreements
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Key Considerations in License Agreements Specific to the Life Sciences Industry
    Sarah Angela Solomon, Catherine A. Sazdanoff, Marya Postner, Christina Carlson
  • Licensing in the Life Sciences Industry
    Jennifer S. Yoon
  • Insurance for Breach of Celebrity Endorsement Agreements
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Areas of Law That Every Celebrity Licensing Attorney Ought to Know Something About
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Ethical Considerations in Licensing and Negotiation
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Litigation Issues for Licensing Lawyers
    Ira Jay Levy
  • 10 Questions to Ask About Your Patent Indemnification Provision
    Eleanor M. Yost
  • Indemnification (PowerPoint slides)
    Themi Anagnos
  • Closing the Loophole: Open Source Licensing & the Implied Patent License (Reprinted from: 26 The Computer & Internet Lawyer 1 (August 2009))
    Christian H. Nadan
  • Copyleft Hanging: Are Licensees under the GPL Third Party Beneficiaries?
    John W. Martin, Paul H. Arne
  • Open Source Issues and Opportunities (PowerPoint slides)
    David G. Rickerby
  • Cloud Computing Legal Issues
    Peter J. Kinsella
  • The Big Data Licensing Issue-Spotter (December 8, 2015)
    David W. Tollen
  • Licensing of Big Data (PowerPoint slides)
    Raymond R. Ferrell
  • IP Issues in Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances
    Joseph Yang
  • IP Issues in Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • International Licensing—Asia
    James W. Maccoun
  • International Licensing—Asia
    Grace L. Pan
  • Intellectual Property Licensing in Asia (PowerPoint slides)
    Grace L. Pan
  • International Licensing—Europe
    Christopher Jeffery
  • International Licensing—Europe
    Christopher Jeffery
  • Intellectual Property Licences and EC Law
    Jeremy Schrire
  • International IP Licensing—Europe (PowerPoint slides)
    Jeremy Schrire
  • International Licensing—Europe (October 17, 2016)
    Sally Shorthose
  • International Licensing—Europe (PowerPoint slides)
    Sally Shorthose
  • Licensing Negotiations: Skills and Tactics
    Marcelo Halpern

Presentation Material


  • Avoiding Common Mistakes in Patent and Technology Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Copyright and Content Licensing
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • How To Establish A Brand Licensing Program
    Oliver Herzfeld
  • Software Licenses
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Specimen Provisions from Technology License Agreements
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Licensing Issues in the Life Sciences Industry
    Scott J. Catlin, Lauren Rabinovic, Jennifer S. Yoon
  • Licensing Rights of Publicity
    Mark G. Tratos
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Negotiation Ethics - Cases
    David Rabinowitz
  • Advanced Licensing Agreements Litigation and Case Law Issues For Licensing Attorneys
    Ira Jay Levy
  • Negotiating and Enforcing Complex IP Indemnification Provisions
    Eleanor M. Yost
  • Cloud Computing Legal Issues
    Peter J. Kinsella
  • Copyleft Hanging: Contracts v. Licenses in light of Versata
    Paul H. Arne
  • Licensing of Big Data
    Raymond R. Ferrell
  • IP Issues in Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances
    Joseph Yang
  • Intellectual Property Licensing in Asia
    Grace L. Pan
  • International IP Licensing - Europe
    Jeremy Schrire
  • Licensing Negotiations: Skills and Tactics
    Marcelo Halpern
Co-Chair(s)
Marcelo Halpern ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Ira Jay Levy ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Joseph Yang ~ PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Speaker(s)
Paul H. Arne ~ Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP
Scott J. Catlin ~ Associate Vice President for Technology Ventures, University of Rochester
Raymond R. Ferrell ~ Executive Vice President – General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, DexYP
Melvin C. Garner ~ Leason Ellis LLP
Oliver Herzfeld ~ Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Beanstalk
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Kenneth M. Kaufman ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Peter J. Kinsella ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Tucker McCrady ~ Executive Vice President & General Counsel, The Orchard
Grace L. Pan ~ Holland & Knight LLP
Lauren Rabinovic ~ Vice President and General Counsel, North Americas Generic IP, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
David Rabinowitz ~ Moses & Singer LLP
Jeremy Schrire ~ Keystone Law
Jonathan Sirota ~ Sirota Law Firm, P.C.
Mark G. Tratos ~ Adjunct Faculty, University of Nevada Las Vegas Boyd School of Law and Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Jennifer S. Yoon ~ Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Eleanor M. Yost ~ Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP
Gail H. Zarick ~ IP Counsel, Security Division, IBM Corporation
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

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2018 (Chicago, IL) May. 10 - 11, 2018
Advanced Licensing Agreements 2018 (New York, NY) Mar. 5 - 6, 2018
Advanced Licensing Agreements 2018 (San Francisco, CA) Jan. 23 - 24, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Licensing Agreements 2017 Marcelo Halpern, Perkins Coie LLP
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Ira Jay Levy, Goodwin Procter LLP
 
Share
Email
“Best PLI seminar I have attended. Extremely practical.”
Christopher Dana, Drummond Woodsum

“One of the best PLI programs I have taken, and over a period of more than 50 years I have taken many!”
Thomas Haythe, Law Offices of Thomas Haythe

“Love this seminar/webinar!!! Really useful and practical.”

“Great breadth of coverage. Some really exceptional speakers.”

“Good presenters with relevant information.”

2016 Attendees


  • 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.