We make these support checklists available, which set out the main issues that you need to think about before granting an IP licence: patent licensees must be aware of the impact of EU competition law, as agreements that limit a licensee`s right to compete with the licensee at the expiry of the patent are contrary to this legislation. Similarly, licences requiring permanent payment of royalties or royalties may be contrary to competition law, although an ongoing payment obligation exceeding the duration of the patent may be permitted if it concerns either fair remuneration for the patent holder (for example. B in the case of research patents that, in the end, cannot bear fruit during their tenure, while their exploitation may be decisive for a possible commercial outcome). or refers to patent-related know-how. A license is an agreement between you as the IP right holder and another party. It gives them permission to do something that would be a violation of rights without the license. Are there legal restrictions on the following provisions of licensing agreements: duration, exclusivity, Internet sales bans, non-competitive restrictions and subsidy provisions? The most popular arbitrators or rules regarding licensing agreements are usually the London Court of International Arbitration or the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration Rules with the most popular headquarters in London. Compensation may be awarded to a “commercial agent” under the 1993 Commercial Agents Regulations (Council Directive) to terminate its continued power to negotiate property on behalf of a client. As a result, most international licensing agreements are structured so that the taker does not enter the definition of “commercial agent.” English courts only apply agency laws if there is an agreement that establishes a primary agent relationship (i.e., where the agent is entitled to dismiss the client, as opposed to a simple licensing relationship (see VLM Holdings Limited/Ravensworth Digital Services Limited ). A trademark may be revoked if it has not been used in the past five years. Fortunately, the use by a licensee is usually the use of a trademark for these purposes. However, be prepared to provide proof of use under the license. This problem recently appeared before a person appointed to the British Intellectual Property Office1.
In this case, the patent holder submitted licensing agreements as proof of use. The appointee felt that this was insufficient. He explained that the licensee should have provided details of the license revenue. In this article, we examine some lessons learned from recent intellectual property licensing disputes. We draw attention to some of the issues that need to be taken into account when negotiating and developing a licensing agreement. The patent position is prescribed by law. Under Section 67 of THE 1977 AP, a licensee can only sue a patent of which he is the sole holder and, if he does, the patent holder must be reunited either as a defendant or, if he is not willing to do so, as a defendant (provided that the patent holder is not a defendant (provided that the patent holder is not a defendant, he is not the defendant). An isolated licensee under Section 67 of PA 1977 may benefit from damages or other facilities. The most recent case law has stated that an exclusive licence subject to the right of a third party to apply for a non-exclusive licence remains an exclusive licence within the meaning of Section 67 of the 1977 AP until the third party expresses its right. Section 46 of the AP 1977 provides that a licensee may, as part of a “legal licence,” apply to a patent holder to initiate injury prevention proceedings and, if the patent holder does not do so within two months, may initiate proceedings himself and join the patent holder as a defendant (although he has no duty to pay, unless he or she manifests himself).