Mylawcle, 5050 CAROTHERS PKWY STE 104 PMB 285, Franklin, TN (2026)

08/31/2026

🔹 The Phrase That Cost DivX Its Patent: Claim Drafting and Construction After Netflix v. DivX 🔹

The Federal Circuit's February 2026 decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC is a warning to every patent drafter—a single grammatical ambiguity unraveled DivX's patent rights across prosecution, PTAB inter partes review, and Federal Circuit appeal. Leave a modifier's referent unclear and courts resolve it under the nearest-reasonable-referent rule; miss an antecedent-basis error and invite indefiniteness under Nautilus; overlook an implicit construction in a Board decision and lose the appellate hook on de novo review. This CLE turns the DivX failure into practitioner work product—delivering claim-drafting and prosecution strategies built for later litigation, command of interpretive canons, and concrete IPR strategies for petitioners and patent owners across institution, trial, and appeal.

👤 Speakers:
Jennifer H. Wu | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Megan F. Raymond | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Jennifer Rea Deneault | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Stephen Accursio Maniscalco | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Joshua Reich | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Ariella Barel | Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP

Key Topics Include:
✅ Interpretive canons, the nearest-reasonable-referent rule, and antecedent-basis errors under Nautilus
✅ Claim-drafting and prosecution strategies that prevail in later construction disputes
✅ Litigating construction in PTAB, district courts, and Federal Circuit after Google v. EcoFactor and Axonics v. Medtronic
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 September 10, 2026 | 12:00 PM – 2:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/the-phrase-that-cost-divx-its-patent-claim-drafting-and-construction-after-netflix-v-divx/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/26/2026

🔹 Section 1983 in Theory and Practice: Qualified Immunity's Shaky Foundations and the Life Cycle of a Civil Rights Case 🔹

Qualified immunity has shaped civil rights litigation for decades, and most practitioners treat it as settled law — but recent scholarship argues the doctrine actually contradicts the original text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and lacks the historical grounding courts have long assumed. That instability matters at every stage of a case: plead a § 1983 claim and qualified immunity frames the fight from day one, survive dismissal and an interlocutory appeal can freeze the litigation for months or years, and bring a Monell claim against a municipality and proving it becomes the central battle. This program pairs hands-on practice with hard theory, walking attorneys through the full life cycle of a civil rights suit — from pleading through trial — before turning to test qualified immunity itself against its text, its history, and its policy justifications. Led by veteran civil rights litigator William Most, whose appellate arguments include Hicks v. LeBlanc and Grant v. LeBlanc before the Fifth Circuit, attendees leave with a stage-by-stage litigation framework and a textualist case against the defense that no case summary can replace.

👤 Speaker:
William Most | Most & Associates

Key Topics Include:
✅ Navigating qualified immunity defenses and interlocutory appeals that can freeze a § 1983 suit at every stage of litigation
✅ Proving Monell claims against municipalities and locating that proof within the life cycle of the case
✅ The textualist challenge to qualified immunity — how it contradicts the original text of Section 1983 and lacks historical support
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 Monday, August 31, 2026 | 1:00pm – 3:10pm ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/section-1983-in-theory-and-practice-qualified-immunitys-shaky-foundations-and-the-life-cycle-of-a-civil-rights-case/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/24/2026

🔹 Witness Preparation and Expert Investigations in the AI Era 🔹

One unsupervised AI session with a witness can cost you the privilege — and no one has to ask permission first. ABA Formal Opinions 508 and 512 now set the ethical terms for attorney AI use in witness prep, and United States v. Heppner establishes exactly what happens to privilege when a witness runs AI-assisted rehearsal unsupervised. Choose the wrong platform and confidential facts leave your control; miss a jurisdiction's expert disclosure requirement and the opinion is exposed. This program is built to cover both sides of the AI-era record: litigators leave with compliance protocols that travel across jurisdictions — platform criteria, pre-engagement AI instructions, supervision of AI-generated prep materials, and the AI questions a witness should expect at deposition — while experts (and the counsel who retain them) leave with a practical, seasoned-expert framework for using AI in technical investigations, digital evidence review, and research without compromising the credibility or defensibility of the resulting report.

👤 Speakers:
Katherine B. Forrest | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Bill Hartzer | Hartzer Consulting

Key Topics Include:
✅ How ABA Formal Opinions 508 and 512, read together, change what counsel must disclose and supervise before AI touches witness preparation
✅ The privilege consequences of unsupervised witness AI use under United States v. Heppner — and the pre-engagement instructions that prevent it
✅ AI-assisted expert witness investigations — research, digital evidence, and documentation practices that keep AI-assisted work defensible on cross
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 Monday, August 31, 2026 | 12:00pm – 2:10pm ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/witness-preparation-and-expert-investigations-in-the-ai-era/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/19/2026

🔹 GGRF Litigation and the Future of Federal Climate Funding: Grant Terminations, Impoundment, and Client Remedies 🔹

Congressionally authorized climate funding was suspended and terminated mid-project, and the disputes now unfolding among the EPA, Citibank, and grant recipients over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund have become the test case for how far federal spending power can be pulled back after the money is committed. Challenge a termination and counsel confront agency authority, federal grant rights, and appropriations limits; plead the case and jurisdiction and sovereign immunity meet you before the merits ever do; win the argument and the practical limits on remedies still leave grantees, subrecipients, and lenders exposed while the doctrine settles. This program traces how the GGRF's structure shapes the current disputes and works through the termination-challenge theories, administrative law, appropriations and impoundment issues, and the constitutional arguments they support. Attendees leave able to read the GGRF docket against the doctrines driving it and to counsel funding-dependent clients on preserving their rights while the law remains unsettled.

👤 Speakers:
Kristin E. Niver | Robinson & Cole
David A. Super | Georgetown University Law Center

Key Topics Include:
✅ Tracing the GGRF's structure and the relationships among the EPA, Citibank, and grant recipients driving the current disputes
✅ Evaluating termination-challenge theories through agency authority, federal grant rights, appropriations limits, and impoundment doctrine
✅ Navigating jurisdiction and sovereign immunity as threshold issues, and counseling grantees, subrecipients, and lenders on preserving remedies
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 August 25, 2026 | 1:00 PM – 3:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/ggrf-litigation-and-the-future-of-federal-climate-funding-grant-terminations-impoundment-and-client-remedies/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/18/2026

🔹 The Dexcom Three-Track Template for Medical Device Litigation 🔹

In March 2025, FDA issued Warning Letter MARCS-CMS 700835 to Dexcom, followed by Class I Recall Notices in June 2025 and October 2025 — and read together, that enforcement record forms a single evidentiary package capable of supporting two entirely distinct litigation tracks. This program teaches attorneys how to convert that record into practitioner work product: an intake workflow for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia injury cases built on FDA MAUDE adverse event data and recall serial-number matching across Dexcom G6, G7, and Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors. The pleading stakes are unforgiving — a state claim that adds to federal requirements is preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a), fraud-on-the-agency theories are barred by Buckman, and a no-injury refund class that ignores TransUnion loses standing before it starts. Attendees will master the parallel-claim framework required to survive both express and implied preemption, then pivot the same FDA record into class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and consumer-protection claims across California, New York, and Florida, with 2026 updates throughout.

👤 Speakers:
Moze Cowper | Cowper Law
Adam J. Levitt | DiCello Levitt
David A. Simon | Northeastern University School of Law

Key Topics Include:
✅ Reading the March 2025 FDA Warning Letter (MARCS-CMS 700835) and the June and October 2025 Class I Recall Notices as one unified evidentiary package
✅ Pleading parallel claims that clear express preemption under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) and implied preemption under Buckman
✅ The consumer refund pivot — Rule 23(b)(3) certification, Article III standing after TransUnion, and CA/NY/FL consumer-protection claims
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 Tuesday, August 25, 2026 | 1:00pm – 3:10pm ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/the-dexcom-three-track-template-for-medical-device-litigation/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/17/2026

🔹 Legal AI in 2026: From Chatbots to AI Agents in Law Practice 🔹

Legal AI has moved past the chat window—it's now multi-step agents embedded across transactions, disputes and investigations, and recurring practice work, and AI-generated work product is increasingly scrutinized in court. The stakes are concrete: select the wrong model and legal analysis suffers, skip verification and hallucinations reach the final work product, mishandle client documents and confidential information gets exposed. This program cuts through the hype to show what's real, what's emerging, and what's overclaimed, giving attorneys a working playbook for when GPT-5.5, Claude 5, or Gemini 3.5 performs best for drafting, long-document review, and investigative work. Attendees leave with practical approaches for discovery, chronologies, and deposition outlines, plus verification workflows that document attorney oversight and hold up to scrutiny.

👤 Speakers:
Danielle Benecke | Baker McKenzie
Adam G. Gutbezahl | Ruberto, Israel & Weiner, P.C.

Key Topics Include:
✅ Matching GPT-5.5, Claude 5, and Gemini 3.5 to specific legal tasks—drafting, long-document review, and investigative work
✅ Using AI to organize productions, identify key themes, and accelerate first-pass document review in discovery
✅ Building verification workflows that document attorney review, catch hallucinations, and protect privileged client information
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 August 24, 2026 | 1:00 PM – 3:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/legal-ai-in-2026-from-chatbots-to-ai-agents-in-law-practice/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/14/2026

🔹 AI Voice and the TCPA: Bringing and Defending the New Class Actions 🔹

The FCC's February 2024 Declaratory Ruling turned every AI-generated voice call into an independent TCPA liability trigger — and with statutory damages running $500 per call and $1,500 for willful violations under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a single automated campaign can generate eight-figure exposure before a defense ever reaches the merits. A first-wave case docket is already forming, and an emerging platform liability theory now reaches past the caller to the technology providers themselves, meaning a well-structured class definition can capture an entire vendor ecosystem. This program is built to work both sides of the case: plaintiff-side attorneys leave with the class action architecture, statutory damages math, consent attack strategies, and vicarious liability chains needed to pursue AI voice callers, while defense counsel leave with a practical playbook covering the critical steps from the outset of litigation that position them to challenge both liability and class certification. Attendees will also get a working survey of the first-wave pleading strategies and current SMS trends shaping the TCPAWorld right now.

👤 Speakers:
Ryan L. McBride | Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Brittany Andres | Troutman Amin, LLP

Key Topics Include:
✅ How the FCC's February 2024 Declaratory Ruling makes AI-generated voice calls an independent TCPA liability trigger
✅ Structuring class definitions that capture entire vendor ecosystems and mounting consent attacks across vicarious liability chains
✅ The defense litigation playbook — critical steps from the outset that position counsel to challenge liability and class certification
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 Friday, August 21, 2026 | 1:00pm – 3:10pm ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/ai-voice-and-the-tcpa-bringing-and-defending-the-new-class-actions/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/12/2026

🔹 AI-Washing and Disclosure Liability: Securities Suits and Drafting Defensible Filings 🔹

AI-related disclosure litigation and enforcement—now known as "AI-washing"—is rising fast, with plaintiffs alleging that public companies market AI-related capabilities they never actually built, and misattributing revenue growth, operational efficiency, or product accuracy to artificial intelligence creates exposure proportional to the overstatement. Overstate a capability and a stock drop invites a class action; market an "automated" system that quietly relies on human review and liability theories follow; a short-seller report can supply loss causation, and civil exposure can escalate into SEC inquiries and DOJ scrutiny. This program gives defense and disclosure counsel a practical framework for auditing AI-related disclosures and building dismissal arguments grounded in puffery, opinion, safe-harbor, and scienter doctrine under the PSLRA's particularity requirements. Attendees leave with drafting techniques, internal review protocols, and disclosure-control frameworks tethered to the Rules of Professional Conduct, built to reduce regulatory exposure and strengthen the defense of future securities claims.

👤 Speakers:
Jeffrey J. Cunningham | Cohen Cunningham LLP
Mary Weeks | Troutman Pepper Locke
Jay A. Dubow | Troutman Pepper Locke
Bianca DiBella | Troutman Pepper Locke

Key Topics Include:
✅ Defeating AI-washing complaints at the motion-to-dismiss stage using puffery, opinion, and safe-harbor doctrine
✅ Navigating scienter and PSLRA particularity requirements, plus the role of short-seller reports in loss causation
✅ Building defensible AI disclosures for SEC filings, earnings calls, and investor presentations through governance controls tied to the Rules of Professional Conduct
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 August 21, 2026 | 1:00 PM – 3:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/ai-washing-and-disclosure-liability-securities-suits-and-drafting-defensible-filings/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/11/2026

🔹 Retirements Assets: IRAs, 401[k]s, and Best Practices to Manage your Estate (2026 Edition) 🔹

A client's IRA—often the largest asset in the estate—lands in a trust drafted to stretch payouts over a beneficiary's lifetime, and the dispositive language now forces the entire account out within ten years, frequently at compressed trust tax rates that erase the deferral the plan was built to protect. The SECURE Act ended the stretch for most beneficiaries, the IRS's final regulations now confirm annual RMDs inside that ten-year window for many heirs, and SECURE 2.0 layers on further changes—yet planners still working from conduit-trust templates and pre-2020 beneficiary forms are handing clients accelerated tax bills without knowing it. This program covers the tax treatment of retirement accounts, current RMD rules for inherited IRAs, and how dispositive trust language controls distribution timing, plus when naming a trust still makes sense and how charitable giving during life and at death can absorb the tax hit. Attendees leave able to draft trust language that survives the see-through rules and structure beneficiary designations that control both timing and tax.

👤 Speakers:
Vanessa L. Kanaga | Becker & House, PLLC
Sahri D. Zeger | CohnReznick, LLP

Key Topics Include:
✅ Applying SECURE Act and SECURE 2.0 rules to current RMD requirements for inherited IRAs
✅ Drafting dispositive trust language that controls distribution timing and survives the see-through rules
✅ Structuring retirement-asset beneficiary designations and charitable giving strategies to manage tax exposure
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 August 19, 2026 | 1:00 PM – 3:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/retirements-assets-iras-401ks-and-best-practices-to-manage-your-estate-2026-edition/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

08/07/2026

🔹 The Mediation Statement and the Persuasive Binder: Written Advocacy That Settles Cases 🔹

Most civil cases now resolve at mediation, not at trial—yet attorneys still arrive with repurposed litigation briefs and no coherent theory of how to present or defend a number. Write the statement for the file and it stays in the file; write it for the adjuster's supervisor and it can close the case. Bury confidential strategy in an open submission and assume the wrong page reaches the wrong side; set an extreme anchor without a stated basis and the mediator has nothing to sell—all while Georgia's ADR rules, OCGA § 24-4-408, and Professional Conduct Rule 4.1 frame what written mediation advocacy can say. Taught by the trial lawyer behind a $30 million DeKalb County wrongful death verdict, this CLE delivers a replicable five-section drafting framework, design principles for damages exhibit binders, criteria for when a settlement video justifies its production cost, and a principled anchoring and bracketing approach grounded in the behavioral research of Tversky, Kahneman, and Galinsky.

👤 Speaker:
James R. Haug | Haug Barron Law Group

Key Topics Include:
✅ Dual-audience mediation statement drafting for the mediator and the adjuster's supervisor
✅ Confidential vs. open submissions under Georgia ADR rules and OCGA § 24-4-408
✅ Principled anchoring, damages exhibit binder design, and settlement video economics
✅ And more!

📍 Live Video-Broadcast
🗓 August 14, 2026 | 1:00 PM – 3:10 PM ET
🔗 Register Here:
https://mylawcle.com/products/the-mediation-statement-and-the-persuasive-binder-written-advocacy-that-settles-cases/

👉 Find this session and more—live, on-demand, and replays—at mylawcle.com.

Mylawcle

08/31/2026

08/26/2026

08/24/2026

08/19/2026

08/18/2026

08/17/2026

08/14/2026

08/12/2026

08/11/2026

08/07/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request