Intellectual property licensing agreements and bankruptcy

2013 ◽  
pp. 281-311
Author(s):  
Mark Reutter
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Licensing Agreements

12. Licensing Agreements and other Agreements Involving Intellectual Property Rights

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Transfer Block ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
The Relationship

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter examines some of the different types of intellectual property rights (IPRs) before outlining the relationship between intellectual property and both EU competition law and the EU free movement rules. It focuses, however, on IP licensing agreements and their treatment under Article 101. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 traces the development of EU competition policy to IP licensing agreements. Sections 4 and 5 examine the current Technology Transfer Block Exemption, Regulation 772/2004 (TTBER) and the Guidelines in detail (noting where significant changes might occur in 2014). Sections 6, 7, and 8 deal with trade mark licences, trade mark delimitation agreements, and copyright (other than software) licences not covered by the TTBER and Guidelines. Section 9 outlines issues arising in cases involving IPRs under Article 102, while Section 10 concludes.

scholarly journals Digital Consumer Contract Law without Prejudice to Copyright: EU Digital Content Directive, Reasonable Consumer Expectations and Competition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliia Oprysk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Consumer Expectations ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
High Level

Abstract The EU Digital Content Directive sets out to facilitate the cross-border distribution of digital content and ensure a high level of consumer protection by harmonising certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. The Directive acknowledges the variety of licensing agreements involved in the distribution of digital content, such as between the holders of intellectual property rights, intermediaries and end-users. It is recognised that the consumer’s use of digital content could be restricted under end-user licensing agreements pursuant to intellectual property rights; at the same time, the Directive is without prejudice to other EU law, including copyright. Rather, under Art. 10, the consumer is entitled to remedies from the trader of digital content for lack of conformity where restrictions resulting from a violation of intellectual property rights prevent or limit the use of the content. As the traders of digital content frequently are not the owners of intellectual property rights but rely themselves on a licence, the question arises as to the potential implications of Art. 10 for digital content markets. This paper discusses two such potential implications. The first is whether the efforts to safeguard reasonable consumer expectations could be undermined by the Directive leaving the arrangements between traders and intellectual property right holders out of scope. The second is whether Art. 10 could reinforce the network effects and dominant position of the established players on the market.

scholarly journals SOME ASPECTS IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF RELATED RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
pp. 784-791
Author(s):  
I. Holova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
National Standard ◽  
Material Damage ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Related Property ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Exclusive Property ◽  
Licensing Agreements

The article discusses the methodology for calculating the amount of material damage that is inflicted on the owners of related rights to distribute television programs (television companies and individuals who have acquired exclusive and non-exclusive property rights to distribute television programs). The legislative framework for economic examinations in the field of intellectual property is analyzed. The main cases of calculating the amount of damages depending on the category of the owner of related rights to broadcast TV channels are given. The calculation of the amount of material damage for the violation of related property rights to broadcast television channels is carried out for the period proven, as part of investigative actions, the time of violation. Usually, economic expertise in the field of intellectual property is preceded by a number of technical examinations, which are carried out by experts in the field of telecommunications in order to confirm the fact of illegal broadcasting of TV channels. According to paragraph 26 of the National Standard № 4 «Evaluation of Intellectual Property Rights», the amount of damages for illegal use of an object of intellectual property rights is determined as of the valuation date using the valuation procedure for accumulating profit (income) that the subject of the intellectual property right did not receive and / or the licensee, as a result of the illegal use of the object of intellectual property rights and, based on the volume of production and / or sale of counterfeit products. Now, in the field of broadcasting, the main media groups enter into licensing agreements for broadcasting with legal entities that represent their interests and conclude sublicensing agreements on their own behalf. They are of two types – with the transfer of an exclusive license to distribute programs using DVB-C / MITPIC / MMDS / TELESELO / analog network, IPTV, OTT and DTH and a non-exclusive license to distribute programs using DVB-C / MITPIC / MMDS / TELESELO / analog network, IPTV, OTT and DTH. In the case of the transfer of exclusive property rights to calculate the amount of material damage, the author considers it expedient to obtain information from the investigation (by sending a corresponding petition) under similar sub-licensing agreements with other providers, which are “similar” to the so-called company-violator. Consequently, the amount of material damage caused to the owner of related property rights, as a result of an illegal broadcast, is calculated as an arithmetic average of the amounts of similar sublicensing contracts, that is, using the procedure of income accumulation. If a legal entity applies to law enforcement agencies that owns non-exclusive proprietary rights to distribute programs using DVB-C / MITPIC / MMDS / TELESELO / analog network, IPTV, OTT and DTH, then Art. 1108 of the Civil Code of Ukraine “A non-exclusive license does not exclude the possibility for the licensor to use an object of intellectual property rights in an area that is limited by this license and to issue licenses to others to use this object in this area” So, according to the author, a legal entity that owns non-exclusive property rights does not bear material damage. Key words: exclusive license, nonexclusive license, material damage.

20. EU competition law and intellectual property

2019 ◽  
pp. 782-818
Author(s):  
Abbe Brown ◽  
Smita Kheria ◽  
Jane Cornwell ◽  
Marta Iljadica
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Relevant Market ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
The Right

This chapter provides an overview of the tension between the application of competition law and the exercise of IPRs. Key issues are the circumstances in which competition law may be applied to moderate the exercise of IPRs in the relevant market; clauses in intellectual property (IP) licensing agreements between undertakings that might be permissible in terms of EU competition law and those which are not; the conditions under which a refusal to supply products protected by an IP right might constitute an abuse of a dominant position by the right holder; and when competition law can provide a defence to an infringement action.

Realizing Value

2019 ◽  
pp. 124-153
Author(s):  
Barbara Townley ◽  
Philip Roscoe ◽  
Nicola Searle
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Creative Industries ◽  
Creative Economy ◽  
Creative Work ◽  
Structural Forces ◽  
Collecting Societies ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
Market Intermediaries

The chapter turns to the realization of revenues in the creative economy, illustrating how the economic value of intellectual property becomes identified and registered. Strategies include work for hire, direct sale, and licensing, often relying on market intermediaries and collecting societies. We illustrate how arriving at prices for singular products in an exchange can be difficult, either because of a lack of ‘equivalence’ or because creative producers must learn what needs to be taken into consideration. We also examine practices of valuation as producers try to maintain control of IPR through licensing agreements. We draw links between the structural forces identified earlier in the book, especially debates over creative labour and entrepreneurship in the creative industries—casualization, precarious labour, the oligopoly of corporations—and the quotidian activities of creative producers as they seek to realize substantial enough returns to allow them to continue in the business of creative work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document