On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Patent Licensing 2017

Released on: Oct. 5, 2017
Running Time: 06:39:54

In the current legal environment, with patent litigation on the decline, patent licensing (and related transactions) are heating up. Experts in patent licensing will discuss how to negotiate patent license agreements, review examples of best (and, in some cases, worst) practices, and share current legal developments affecting patent licensing. Practical tips for structuring, negotiating and drafting patent licenses, with strategies for both the licensor and licensee, will be emphasized.

You will learn:

  • Learn how to monetize patents
  • Hear experts from Silicon Valley’s best companies/firms tell you what to watch out for
  • Find out the litigation trends from recent years affecting IP licensing
  • Understand how specific court cases have (in some ways) expanded and/or (in other ways) shrunken patenting, licensing, enforcement and/or patent challenge opportunities
  • Learn how to update traditional patent licensing provisions in light of recent case law
  • Identify frequently contested provisions and how to negotiate them
  • Explore patent and/or license enforcement considerations
  • Evaluate the circumstances pertaining to licensing in the U.S. and abroad

Special features:

  • Hypotheticals: analysis of a patent license agreement
  • Mock patent licensing negotiation

This program is geared toward those who need to offer patents for licensing, respond to patent licensing offers, draft and negotiate patent licenses, and enforce patent license agreements. In addition, intellectual property lawyers, corporate counsel, and others involved in the utilization of patents as business assets will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:39:54]

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

  • Program Overview* [00:02:00]
    Mark S. Holmes, Joseph Yang
  • Patent Monetization Tactics [01:36:35]
    Andrea L. Gothing, Robert P. Taylor, Mark S. Holmes
  • Structuring the Patent License Agreement Grant [00:30:15]
    Burch A. Harper
  • Analysis of a Patent License Agreement [02:00:18]
    William H. Hamby, Winston E. Henderson, Meredith M. McKenzie, Mark S. Holmes, Jennifer Zanocco
  • Year in Review: Summary of Recent Case Law Affecting Patent Licensing [01:06:55]
    Joseph Yang
  • Mock Deal Negotiation of a Patent License: A Panel of Patent Licensing Specialists [01:23:50]
    Joseph Yang, Jake Handy, Nader A. Mousavi

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


  • COMPELTE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Declaratory Judgments Ten Years After Medimmune (July 16, 2017)
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Patent Monetization Tactics (PowerPoint slides)
    Andrea L. Gothing
  • Structuring the Patent License Agreement Grant
    Burch A. Harper
  • Specimen Provisions from Patent License Agreements; Excerpts reprinted from Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation & Forms (2nd Edition)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Mark S. Holmes, Ch. 17: Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, Practising Law Institute, Patent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation & Forms (2nd Edition) (November 2016)
    Mark S. Holmes
  • Recent Legal Developments Affecting Patent Licensing
    Joseph Yang
  • Recent Developments in IP/Tech Licensing: 2016 in Review (PowerPoint slides)
    Joseph Yang
  • Mock Negotiation of a Patent License Agreement
    Jake Handy, Joseph Yang, Nader A. Mousavi
  • Sample License Agreement
    Jake Handy, Joseph Yang, Nader A. Mousavi

Presentation Material


  • Patent Monetization Tactics
    Andrea L. Gothing
  • Declaratory Judgment Actions After MedImmune
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Structuring the Patent License Grant
    Burch A. Harper
  • Recent Developments in IP/Tech Licensing: 2016 in Review
    Joseph Yang
  • Mock Negotiation of a Patent License Agreement
    Jake Handy, Nader A. Mousavi, Joseph Yang
Co-Chair(s)
Mark S. Holmes ~ CEO, PatentBridge LLC
Joseph Yang ~ PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
Speaker(s)
Andrea L. Gothing ~ Robins Kaplan LLP
William H. Hamby ~ Corporate Counsel, Specialty Products Division, DowDuPont™
Jake Handy ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Winston E. Henderson ~ Vice President, General Counsel, Nano Terra, Inc.
Meredith M. McKenzie ~ Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Juniper Networks, Inc.
Nader A. Mousavi ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
Jennifer Zanocco ~ Patent Counsel, Google
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 “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Patent Licensing 2019 (San Francisco, CA) Sep. 13, 2019
Advanced Patent Licensing 2018 (San Francisco, CA) Sep. 14, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Patent Licensing 2018  
Advanced Patent Licensing 2017 Mark S Holmes, PatentBridge LLC
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
 
Share
Email
“The faculty was great and probably the best that I’ve seen in a seminar. I will definitely write and negotiate better licensing agreements with the knowledge obtained from this course.”
David Hendricks, Patent Attorney, The Law Office of David P. Hendricks, Raleigh, North Carolina

“Very useful and practical. One of the best conferences I have attended.”
Jaimes Sher, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Celanese Corporation, Irving, Texas


  • 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.