Overview

UT Law's 21st Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute in Austin covers the latest developments in patent law and features a sophisticated and rich array of prosecution and litigation topics. Hear from nationally recognized faculty including senior IP counsel of major corporations, patent prosecution and litigation experts from around the nation, U.S. District Court Judges, and leading academics.

This year’s program features:

  • A review of recent Section 101 decisions their impact on shaping the Alice analysis; plus practical prosecution tips and strategies under the new USPTO guidelines
  • Tips and strategies for practicing before the PTAB, including new rules, best practices and current trends; plus insight and tips from the perspective of former Administrative Patent Judges;
  • An in-depth exploration of current “tensions” in concurrent proceedings before the PTAB and the District Courts; what litigators and patent owners should know and understand
  • Recent developments in claims construction, with a focus on the latest post-Teva Federal Circuit cases and the PTAB’s claims construction rules.
  • A continued look at the impact of Octane Fitness, including developing trends and common pitfalls
  • A discussion on the impact of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the America Invents Act on the protection of technology.
  • A panel of In-House Counsel discuss the key issues around patent prosecution, litigation and licensing, the prospect of patent reform, and more.
  • Key patent licensing strategies, with emphasis on drafting and negotiation
  • The impact of Lexmark, Halo and Life Tech on overseas sales and recent developments in the law of patent exhaustion and foreign sales of products patented in the U.S
  • A special luncheon presentation with Hope C. Shimabuki, Regional Director of the U.S. Patent Trademark Office’s Texas Regional Office
  • Presentations by nationally-recognized academics—Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School; John M. Golden, The University of Texas School of Law; and David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law
  • Insight from sitting U.S. District Court Judges, including Judge Robert W. Schroeder III (EDTX) and Judge Roy Payne (EDTX) and from former Judge Faith S. Hochberg on the current landscape for damages and remedies and their experiences hearing patent cases
  • Plus, network with program faculty and fellow practitioners at a Thursday Evening Reception

Event Schedule

Program is subject to change.
All times are Central Time Zone.

  • Time
    Credit
    Subject
    Speaker
  • Thursday Morning
    Presiding Officer:
    Mark E. Scott, Conley Rose, PC - Austin, TX
  • 7:30 am
    Austin Only
    Registration Opens
    Includes continental breakfast.

  • 8:20 am
    Welcoming Remarks

  • 8:30 am
    0.75 hr
    Recent Developments in Claims Construction
    Claim construction remains pivotal for patent preparation/prosecution, trials, appeals, and AIA post grant review proceedings. Focus on latest post-Teva Federal Circuit cases and the PTAB's claim construction "rules, practices and so-forth," including Dell/SAS and APA restrictions.

    Kenneth R. Adamo, Kirkland & Ellis LLP - Chicago, IL

  • 9:15 am
    0.50 hr
    Indirect Infringement and Divided Infringement
    Examine the evolving impact of Commill and Akamai in the context of indirect and divided infringement.

    Kevin Kudlac, Greenberg Traurig, LLP - Austin, TX

  • 9:45 am
    0.50 hr
    Octane Requires More Fitness
    Discuss what makes a case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after the Supreme Court decision in Octane Fitness, including an analysis of developing trends and common pitfalls.

    Gregory L. Hillyer, Brinks Gilson & Lione - Washington, DC

  • 10:15 am
    Break

  • 10:30 am
    0.50 hr
    Defining the Contours of Alice
    Recent decisions on Section 101 patent-eligible subject matter have begun to connect the dots, giving additional shape to the Alice analysis. Review these decisions and consider the lessons to be learned.

    Steven R. Borgman, Vinson & Elkins LLP - Houston, TX
    Janice Le Ta, Vinson & Elkins LLP - Austin, TX

  • 11:00 am
    1.00 hr
    Section 101 and Alice: Prosecution Tips and New USPTO Guidelines
    Engage in a practical discussion of the USPTO guidelines and their examples to help navigate a sound path from disclosure development, through application drafting, to launch into difficult and changeable seas. Hear experiences from regular interviews in the office to the USPTO’s most recent guidance for prosecution of those applications already at sea.

    Michael W. Piper, Conley Rose, PC - Plano, TX

  • 12:00 pm
    Austin Only
    Pick Up Lunch (in Austin)
    Included in registration.

  • Thursday Afternoon
    Presiding Officer:
    Michael P. Adams, Jackson Walker LLP - Austin, TX
  • LUNCHEON PRESENTATION
  • Thank You to Our Exclusive Sponsor
    Conley Rose, PC

  • 12:20 pm
    0.50 hr
    Interview with the USPTO Texas Regional Director

    Hope C. Shimabuku, Regional Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Texas Regional Office - Dallas, TX
    Moderator:
    David L. McCombs, Haynes and Boone, LLP - Dallas, TX

  • 12:50 pm
    Break

  • 1:05 pm
    0.50 hr
    Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs): From Germany to Luxemburg and Back—Recent Legal Developments in Europe
    Learn the most recent developments in dealing with standard-essential patents under European patent and antitrust laws. Address the CJEU's landmark decision in Huawei v. ZTE (2015) and the subsequent implementation, in particular, by the German patent courts, and examine injunctions and the requirements for a successful FRAND defense.

    Dr. Markus Gampp, DLA Piper UK LLP - Munich, Germany

  • 1:35 pm
    1.00 hr
    0.25 hr ethics
    PTAB Proceedings: New Rules and Key Practice Tips
    Discuss the best practices and current trends at the PTAB, including a review of new PTAB rules, evidence issues, and practice tips.

    Moderator:
    Andrew S. Ehmke, Haynes and Boone, LLP - Dallas, TX
    Panelists:
    Michael T. Rosato, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati - Seattle, WA
    Mark Thomas Garrett, Norton Rose Fulbright - Austin, TX
    Gregory P. Huh, Haynes and Boone, LLP - Richardson, TX

  • 2:35 pm
    0.75 hr
    ​Tips and Strategies for Practicing Before the PTAB
    The panel of former PTAB judges share their experiences on what works most effectively in practice before the PTAB.

    Moderator:
    Hon. Amber L. Hagy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Dallas, TX
    Panelists:
    Scott E. Kamholz, Foley Hoag LLP - Washington, DC
    James D. Smith, Ecolab - Wadsworth, IL

  • 3:20 pm
    Break

  • 3:30 pm
    0.75 hr
    Concurrent Proceedings: Tension between PTAB and the District Courts
    Explore what is really happening in the practice—including what litigators need to be concerned about within the District Courts and what patent owners should know when taking their cases before the PTAB. Learn how the different courts are approaching stays (and the implications of stays), how judges are being forced to deal with cases, the different evidentiary standards, and more.

    Moderator:
    Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - Washington, DC
    Panelists:
    David J. Healey, Fish & Richardson P.C. - Houston, TX
    Brian W. Oaks, Baker Botts L.L.P. - Austin, TX

  • 4:15 pm
    1.00 hr
    0.50 hr ethics
    Judicial Panel
    Hear distinguished judges from the District Court discuss their experiences hearing and trying patent cases.

    Moderator:
    Alan D. Albright, Bracewell - Austin, TX
    Panelists:
    Hon. David Folsom, Jackson Walker LLP - Texarkana, TX
    Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, Judge Hochberg ADR - New York City, NY
    Hon. Roy Payne, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas - Marshall, TX

  • 5:15 pm
    Adjourn


  • Austin Only
    Networking Reception (in Austin from 5:15 p.m. – 6:15 p.m.)
    Join us for drinks and hors d'oeuvres with program faculty and attendees.
     
    Thank You to Our Exclusive Sponsor
    Vinson & Elkins LLP

  • Time
    Credit
    Subject
    Speaker
  • Friday Morning
    Presiding Officer:
    William D. Wiese, DuBois, Bryant & Campbell, L.L.P. - Austin, TX
  • 7:30 am
    Austin Only
    Conference Room Opens
    Includes continental breakfast.

  • 8:30 am
    0.75 hr
    Supreme Court Update
    Consider aspects of the Supreme Court’s continuing involvement in patent law, with specific reference to cases decided in October Term 2015 and pending in October Term 2016. Also, trace the themes or dynamics that extend beyond individual cases.

    John M. Golden, The University of Texas School of Law - Austin, TX

  • 9:15 am
    0.50 hr
    AIA Section 102 Now Being Seen in Litigated Cases
    Investigate the new conditions for novelty under the AIA, 35 U.S.C. §102, now seen in litigated cases from patent applications first filed after March 16, 2013, including how those cases play out and what patent litigators should be looking for.

    Ramzi R. Khazen, McKool Smith - Austin, TX
    Steven J. Pollinger, McKool Smith - Austin, TX

  • 9:45 am
    0.50 hr
    Means-plus-Function Claims after Williamson v. Citrix
    Discuss the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix on claim construction, claim scope, and claim validity.

    Aden M. Allen, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. - Austin, TX
    José C. Villarreal, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. - Austin, TX

  • 10:15 am
    Break

  • 10:30 am
    0.50 hr
    ​Overseas Sales in Light of Lexmark, Halo, and Life Tech
    The development of a global marketplace has disrupted settled notions of how activities abroad impact enforcement of U.S. patent rights. Address recent developments in the law of patent exhaustion and foreign sales of products patented in the U.S.

    Ajeet P. Pai, Baker Botts L.L.P. - Austin, TX

  • 11:00 am
    0.50 hr
    Opinion Practice after Halo and Stryker—More Valuable Now?
    Explore the value and usefulness of opinions of counsel in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent Halo and Stryker decisions. Highlights include retracing the recent history of opinions of counsel in patent litigation, identifying various costs and benefits of opinions of counsel, and offering suggestions for when it can be beneficial to obtain an opinions of counsel. 

    Jeffrey D. Mills, King & Spalding - Austin, TX

  • 11:30 am
    0.50 hr
    Rethinking IP Strategies
    Track the impact of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the America Invents Act, on the protection of technology.

    Hilda C. Galvan, Jones Day - Dallas, TX

  • 12:00 pm
    Austin Only
    Pick Up Lunch (in Austin)
    Included in registration

  • Friday Afternoon
    Presiding Officer:
    Richard L. Wynne Jr., Thompson & Knight LLP - Dallas, TX
  • LUNCHEON PRESENTATION
  • Thank You to Our Exclusive Sponsor
    Baker Botts L.L.P.

  • 12:20 pm
    0.75 hr
    The Surprising Resilience of the Patent System
    Despite seemingly massive changes in patent law in the last 40 years, first towards stronger and then towards weaker protection, the basic trends in use of the patent system have remained largely unchanged. Find out why.

    Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School and Durie Tangri LLP - Stanford and San Francisco, CA

  • 1:05 pm
    Break

  • 1:20 pm
    0.75 hr
    Licensing Agreements
    Drafting and negotiating patent licenses has always been tricky, but the rapid pace of technological disruption, the increasingly complex web of  industry relationships, and developing bodies of law have come together to make it more challenging than ever. Review how licensing strategies should evolve to take into account these and related factors, with an emphasis on real-world drafting and negotiating examples.

    Edward A. Cavazos, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - Austin, TX
    Keith E. Witek, Tesla Motors - Austin, TX

  • 2:05 pm
    1.00 hr
    0.25 hr ethics
    In House Counsel Panel
    Panelists discuss the issues that matter most from the perspective of in-house counsel. Engage in a wide ranging discussion of patent prosecution, litigation and licensing issues, and the prospect for patent reform as viewed by those working within the biotech, retail, and petroleum industries.

    Moderator:
    Mark E. Patrick, Texas Instruments Incorporated - Dallas, TX
    Panelists:
    Marcella Watkins, Shell Oil Company - Houston, TX
    Diane K. Lettelleir, J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. - Plano, TX
    Ana C. Ward, Rosetta Genomics - Austin, TX

  • 3:05 pm
    1.00 hr ethics
    Privilege in Patent Cases: What’s New?
    Analyze the privilege and work-product issues that arise in patent practice, including the risks still associated with relying upon protection over communications involving patent agents, and explore the risks of various commercial arrangements, such as licensing and joint ventures.

    David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law and Taylor English Duma LLP - Macon and Atlanta, GA

  • 4:05 pm
    Adjourn

Conference Faculty

Kenneth R. Adamo

Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Chicago, IL

Alan D. Albright

Bracewell
Austin, TX

Aden M. Allen

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Austin, TX

Steven R. Borgman

Vinson & Elkins LLP
Houston, TX

Edward A. Cavazos

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Austin, TX

Andrew S. Ehmke

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Dallas, TX

Hon. David Folsom

Jackson Walker LLP
Texarkana, TX

Hilda C. Galvan

Jones Day
Dallas, TX

Dr. Markus Gampp

DLA Piper UK LLP
Munich, Germany

Mark Thomas Garrett

Norton Rose Fulbright
Austin, TX

John M. Golden

The University of Texas School of Law
Austin, TX

Hon. Amber L. Hagy

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Dallas, TX

David J. Healey

Fish & Richardson P.C.
Houston, TX

Gregory L. Hillyer

Brinks Gilson & Lione
Washington, DC

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg

Judge Hochberg ADR
New York City, NY

David Hricik

Mercer University School of Law and Taylor English Duma LLP
Macon and Atlanta, GA

Gregory P. Huh

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Richardson, TX

Scott E. Kamholz

Foley Hoag LLP
Washington, DC

Ramzi R. Khazen

McKool Smith
Austin, TX

Kevin Kudlac

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Austin, TX

Mark A. Lemley

Stanford Law School and Durie Tangri LLP
Stanford and San Francisco, CA

Diane K. Lettelleir

J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
Plano, TX

David L. McCombs

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Dallas, TX

Jeffrey D. Mills

King & Spalding
Austin, TX

Brian W. Oaks

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Austin, TX

Ajeet P. Pai

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Austin, TX

Mark E. Patrick

Texas Instruments Incorporated
Dallas, TX

Hon. Roy Payne

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Marshall, TX

Michael W. Piper

Conley Rose, PC
Plano, TX

Steven J. Pollinger

McKool Smith
Austin, TX

Michael T. Rosato

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Seattle, WA

Hope C. Shimabuku

Regional Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Texas Regional Office
Dallas, TX

James D. Smith

Ecolab
Wadsworth, IL

Robert Greene Sterne

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC

Janice Le Ta

Vinson & Elkins LLP
Austin, TX

José C. Villarreal

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Austin, TX

Ana C. Ward

Rosetta Genomics
Austin, TX

Marcella Watkins

Shell Oil Company
Houston, TX

Keith E. Witek

Tesla Motors
Austin, TX

Planning Committee

Alan D. Albright—Co-Chair

Bracewell
Austin, TX

Mark E. Scott—Co-Chair

Conley Rose, PC
Austin, TX

Michael P. Adams

Jackson Walker LLP
Austin, TX

Tom Adolph

Adolph Locklar
Houston, TX

Michael C. Barrett

Cirrus Logic
Austin, TX

Brent K. Bersin

Duff and Phelps, LLC
Houston, TX

Steven R. Borgman

Vinson & Elkins LLP
Houston, TX

Christa Brown-Sanford

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Dallas, TX

John D. Flynn

IBM Corporation
Austin, TX

Hilda C. Galvan

Jones Day
Dallas, TX

Mark Thomas Garrett

Norton Rose Fulbright
Austin, TX

John M. Golden

The University of Texas School of Law
Austin, TX

John M. Guaragna

DLA Piper LLP US
Austin, TX

David J. Healey

Fish & Richardson P.C.
Houston, TX

Joanna Jefferson

The University of Texas School of Law
Austin, TX

Robert L. King

Silicon Labs
Austin, TX

Kevin Kudlac

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Austin, TX

William L. LaFuze

McKool Smith
Houston, TX

Mark A. Lemley

Stanford Law School and Durie Tangri LLP
Stanford and San Francisco, CA

David L. McCombs

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Dallas, TX

Kevin J. Meek

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Austin, TX

Eric L. Natinsky

Quick Technologies Inc.
Austin, TX

James J. Nawrocki

IPFC Corp.
Houston, TX

David W. O'Brien

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Austin, TX

Steven J. Pollinger

McKool Smith
Austin, TX

Garland T. Stephens

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Houston, TX

José C. Villarreal

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Austin, TX

Shirley Webster

Ocean Tomo, LLC
Houston, TX

William D. Wiese

DuBois, Bryant & Campbell, L.L.P.
Austin, TX

Richard L. Wynne Jr.

Thompson & Knight LLP
Dallas, TX

Credit Info

MCLE Credit
A Texas MCLE Reporting Form will be included in your course materials. Please complete and return to the registration desk and UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to the State Bar of Texas, or you can self-report your credit directly to the State Bar of Texas at texasbar.com. A Certificate of Attendance will be provided at the conference to keep for your records.  
At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. Self-report your CLE credit directly to the State Bar of California at calbar.ca.gov. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  
UT Law CLE will verify the number of Illinois attorneys in attendance within 10 days after the conference and will report your credit to the MCLE Board of the Supreme Court of Illinois. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.
As The University of Texas School of Law is a State Bar of Texas approved MCLE provider (Sponsor #13), our courses are presumptively approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Regulations of the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on Continuing Legal Education. More information and details can be found in the Board of Continuing Legal Education Regulations.

At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. Self-report your CLE credit directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on Continuing Legal Education. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.
As The University of Texas School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider (#1944), and the State Bar of California is a New York Approved Jurisdiction, our courses are approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Program Rules and the Regulations and Guidelines of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board. More information and details can be found at Section 6 of the Regulations and Guidelines.

At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. Self-report your CLE credit directly to the New York State Bar Association. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  
UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to The Supreme Court of Ohio within 30 days after the conference. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records.
At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records. UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to the Oklahoma Bar Association within 30 days after the conference.
UT Law CLE is an approved provider of Pennsylvania credit, sponsor #236. Attorney attendance will be reported to Pennsylvania within 2 weeks of the webcast conclusion. Attorneys are not able to report this credit on their own, and UT Law CLE pays all associated fees for the credit hours. Contact Laura Tolin, ltolin@law.utexas.edu, if you have additional questions.
Note on Self-Reporting Your Credits in Another State
If you wish to satisfy MCLE or other professional education requirements in another state for a program offered by the University of Texas School of Law, please check with the state bar or other licensing authority in that state before taking the program to ensure it will qualify for self-reporting your credits.
Other Credit
The University of Texas School of Law (Provider #250) live conferences are presumptively approved by The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy for Texas Accounting CPE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour. Approved for general CPE credit only.

At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Accounting CPE Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. You will receive a Texas Accounting Certificate of Completion at the conference for your records. Self-report your CPE credit directly to TSBPA. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  

Contact Laura Tolin, ltolin@law.utexas.edu, if you have additional questions.
MCLE Credit
UT Law CLE will report credit to the State Bar of Texas on your behalf. If you are claiming credit in the last week of your birth month, self-report your credit directly to the State Bar of Texas at texasbar.com. A Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you upon claiming credit.
Self-report your CLE credit directly to the State Bar of California at calbar.ca.gov. Print and keep the Certificate of Completion for your records. A Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you upon claiming credit.
UT Law CLE will verify the number of Illinois attorneys in attendance within 10 days after the conference and will report your credit to the MCLE Board of the Supreme Court of Illinois. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.
As The University of Texas School of Law is a State Bar of Texas approved MCLE provider (Sponsor #13), our courses are presumptively approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Regulations of the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on Continuing Legal Education. More information and details can be found in the Board of Continuing Legal Education Regulations.

New Jersey MCLE credit is based on a 50-minute credit hour. This accreditation requires attendance verification. In compliance with the rules, UT Law CLE monitors and records attendee responses to questions that randomly appear during the live webcast presentation. The response record is detailed on the Certificate of Completion.

To claim New York MCLE credit, New Jersey credit option must be selected PRIOR to viewing the live webcast. Upon claiming credit, a Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you. Self-report your credit directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on CLE.
As The University of Texas School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider (#1944), and the State Bar of California is a New York Approved Jurisdiction, our courses are approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Program Rules and the Regulations and Guidelines of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board. More information and details can be found at Section 6 of the Regulations and Guidelines.

New York MCLE credit is based on a 50-minute credit hour. This accreditation requires attendance verification. In compliance with the rules, UT Law CLE monitors and records attendee responses to questions that randomly appear during the live webcast presentation. The response record is detailed on the Certificate of Completion.

To claim New York MCLE credit, New York credit option must be selected PRIOR to viewing the live webcast. Upon claiming credit, a Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you. Self-report your credit directly to the New York State CLE Board.
UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to The Supreme Court of Ohio within 30 days after the conference. You will receive a Certificate of Attendance at the conference to keep for your records.
The University of Texas School of Law (Provider #169) live webcast presentations meet the requirements and are presumptively approved by the Oklahoma Bar Association for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour. This accreditation requires attendance verification. In compliance with the rules, UT Law CLE monitors and records attendee responses to questions that randomly appear during the live webcast presentation. The response record is detailed on the Certificate of Completion.

To claim Oklahoma MCLE credit, Oklahoma credit option must be selected PRIOR to viewing the live webcast. Upon claiming credit, a Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you. UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to the Oklahoma Bar Association within 30 days after the webcast.
Note on Self-Reporting Your Credits in Another State
If you wish to satisfy MCLE or other professional education requirements in another state for a program offered by the University of Texas School of Law, please check with the state bar or other licensing authority in that state to ensure it will qualify for self-reporting your credits.

To claim Other States MCLE credit, Other States credit option must be selected PRIOR to viewing the live webcast. Upon claiming credit, a Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you.

This accreditation requires attendance verification. UT Law CLE monitors and records attendee responses to questions that randomly appear during the live webcast presentation. The response record is detailed on the Certificate of Completion .

MCLE credit is presented based on a 60-minute credit hour.
Other Credit
The University of Texas School of Law (Provider #250) live webcast presentations meet the requirements and are presumptively approved by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy for Texas Accounting CPE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour. Approved for general CPE credit only.

This accreditation requires attendance verification. In compliance with the rules, UT Law CLE monitors and records attendee responses to questions that randomly appear during the live webcast presentation. The response record is detailed on the Certificate of Completion.

To claim Texas Accounting CPE credit, the Texas Accounting CPE credit option must be selected PRIOR to viewing the live webcast. Upon claiming credit, a Certificate of Completion will be emailed to you. Self-report your CPE credit directly to the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy.

Contact Laura Tolin, ltolin@law.utexas.edu, if you have additional questions.

Key Dates

Austin – Nov 3-4, 2016 – Four Seasons Hotel
Conference Concluded
Live Webcast – Nov 3-4, 2016
Conference Concluded
Buy
Austin
Last day for Individual early registration: Oct 26, 2016

Add $50 for registrations received after this time

Last day for Group (5 registrants minimum) early registration: Oct 26, 2016

Add $50 for registrations received after this time

Last day for Group (10 registrants minimum) early registration: Oct 26, 2016

Add $50 for registrations received after this time

Last day for cancellation (full refund): Oct 28, 2016

$50 processing fee applied after this date

Last day for cancellation: Oct 31, 2016
Live Webcast
Last day for Individual early registration: Nov 3, 2016

Add $0 for registrations received after this time

Last day for Group (5 registrants minimum) early registration: Nov 3, 2016

Add $0 for registrations received after this time

Last day for Group (10 registrants minimum) early registration: Nov 3, 2016

Add $0 for registrations received after this time

Last day for cancellation (full refund): Oct 28, 2016

$50 processing fee applied after this date

Last day for cancellation: Oct 31, 2016

Venue

speaker

98 San Jacinto Boulevard
Austin, TX 78701-4082
512.685.8100 (reservations)
Map

Accommodations

$269 room rate good through October 3, 2016 (subject to availability). 

Parking Information

$12 Event Daily; $16 Valet Daily; $32.50 Overnight Self-Parking or Valet.

Our Sponsors

Thank you to our sponsors! Click each logo below to learn more.

Subscribe to Our Hooked on CLE Monthly Newsletter