Comparative Study of Assignability of all Types of License Agreements Emphasizing on the Judicial Procedure in the US

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Student in Private Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Economics, Islamic Azad University, Khomeini Shahr Branch, Khomeini Shahr, Iran

10.22099/jls.2022.37542.3949

Abstract

Acceptance of transferability of contracts is not specific to a particular contract and a general rule can be derived from it for all contracts. However, some jurists have believed the need for the consent of licensor to the free transfer of certain types of license agreements. Explaining the free transferability of the contract by the licensee and the position of the consent of licensor in the transferability of each type of license agreement is a specific question that should be answered by said that transfer of exclusive, sole licenses, individual licenses, trademark and know-how licenses is not possible except with the consent of the licensor. Looking at the laws of different nations, international documents as well as an analysis of US jurisprudence, the effects and functions of anti-transferability conditions in the contract were also considered.

Keywords

References

Asensio, Pedro A De Miguel (2013) “The Law Governing International Intellectual Property Licensing Agreements. (Conflict of Law)”, Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Licensing Cheltenham, Edward Elger Publication, pp. 312-336. Bach-y-Rita, Peter, Newman, Samuel A., Dunn Gibson, & Llp, Crutcher (2009) “Why the Assignability of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy might not be Settled after all”, ABI Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 315, pp. 15-29. Bridge, Michael (2015) “The Nature of Assignment and Non-Assignment Clauses”, The London School of Economics, pp. 1-32. Cameron, Donald M. (1997) “Aird & Berlis”, Assignment of Licensed Rights or Obligations. Fellmenth, Aaron Xavier (2011). «Control without Interest, State Law of Assignment, Federal Preemption & the Intellectual Property License».Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, Spring, Vol. 8, No.6, pp. 1-45. Gibson, Samuel A., Newman, Dunn (2009) “Why the Assignability of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Might Not be Settled after All”. ABI Law Review, Vol.25, No.8, pp. 315-327. Hirshman, Neil S., Fatall, Michael G. and Spingola, Peter M. (2002) “Assignability of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Navigating the Murky Waters of Section 365”. IPL Newsletter, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 11-19. Elaine D. Ziff and John G. Deming (2017) IP Licenses: Restrictions on Assignment and Change of Control, Practical Law Publication. Paul, C. John, Brian, Kacedon (2016) “Prohibitions on Assigning a Patent License Agreement and Interests Under the Agreement Do Not Prohibit Assigning Patents Licensed Under the Agreement”, LES Insights. Documents African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) Bangui Agreement amended on February 24, 1999 Entry into force: February 28, 2002. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2349 / 84 of 23 July 1984 on the Application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to Certain Categories of Patent Licensing Agreements Commission Regulation (EEC) No 556/89 of 30 November 1988 on the Application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to Certain Categories of Know-how Licensing Agreements. Model Intellectual Property Pontract Law, UNCITRAL - Third International Colloquium on Secured Transactions Presentation by Lorin Brennan and Jeff Dodd Draft Model IP Contract Law Page 1 Concept Draft for Discussion Only. Model Intellectual Property Contract Law, UNCITRAL - Third International Colloquium on Secured Transactions Presentation by Lorin Brennan and Jeff Dodd Draft Model IP Contract Law Page 1 Concept Draft for Discussion Only Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as Revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979 Unidroit Principles Of International Commercial Contracts 2010 United Nations Commission on International Trade law(UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions Supplement on Security Rights in Intellectual Property, No. E.11.V.6, New York, 2011, Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Guide on the Legal Aspects of the Negotiation and Preparation of Industrial Property Licenses and Technology Transfer Agreements Appropriate to the Needs of Developing Countries. No 620 (E) Geneva 1977 Codes BELGIUM Patent Law as last amended on January 28, 1997 Entry Into Force: April 14, 1997. Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (Adopted and Promulgated by the Second Session of the Ninth National People's Congress March 15, 1999) HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as Consolidated on January 1, 2008. SPAIN Trademark Act Law No. 17/2001 of December 7, 2001 entry into force: July 31, 2002. SUDAN Patents Act Act No. 58 of 1971 entry into force: October 15, 1971 THAILAND Trademark Act of 28 October B.E. 2534 (1991) as amended by Act (No. 2) B.E. 2543 (2000) entry into force: June 30, 2000. The italian Civil Code, Translated by M. B. Giovanni & others, USA, 1969. TURKEY Trademark Law Decree-law No. 556 as amended by Law No. 4128 of November 7, 1995 entry into force: november 7, 1995. U.S Copyright Act of 1976. Uniform Commercial Code (United States). Cases 1-Aluminum Co. of America v. Norton Co. Inc., 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1317, 1993 WL 330628, *2 (W.D. Pa. 1993) 2- Barbados Trust Co. v Bank of Zambia (2007) 3- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., 804 F. Supp. at 630 (1992) 4- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) 5- Everex Sys., Inc. v. Cadtrak Corp., 89 F.3d 673, 679 (9th Cir. 1996) 6 -Fenn V. Pickwick. (cal.app) )1931( 7- Golden Books Family Entertainment, Inc., 269 B.R. 311 (Bankr. D. Del. 2001) 8- Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U.S. 226, 234 (1886) 9- McNeilab, Inc. v. Scandipharm, Inc., 95 F.3d 1164, 1996.WL 431352, *5 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 10- Oliver v. Rumford Chem. Works, 109 U.S. 75, 82 (1883) 11- Patient Educ. Media, Inc., 210 B.R. 237 (S.D. N.Y. 1997) 12- Rock-Ola Mfg. Corp. v. Filben Mfg. Co., Inc., 168 F.2d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 1948) 13- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984) 14- SQL Solutions, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 1991 WL 626458 (N.D. Cal. 1991) 15- Tap Publication, Inc. v. Chinese Yellow Pages (New York), Inc., 925 F. Supp. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 16- Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 55 U.S. 193, 216 (1852

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics