Category Archives: Licensing

Use restrictions in contracts of sale

pink or black for court?

pink or black for court?

Long-term readers of this blog may recall earlier articles about whether a seller of a product may restrict the use that the purchaser can make of that product, and whether such restrictions are binding on subsequent owners of the product. For example, may the original seller exercise its IP rights against a subsequent owner to enforce any such restrictions? This subject raises questions of public policy that, in different jurisdictions, are channelled into legal principles such as exhaustion of rights, non-derogation from grant, and the first sale doctrine. See, for example, the EU UsedSoft case, discussed here in 2012.

This subject was forced back into IP Draughts’ mind by the recent spat between two artists, Sir Anish Kapoor and Mr Stuart Semple, reported here.

Apparently, Sir Anish has acquired an exclusive licence, in the field of art, to use Vantablack, the “blackest black” in existence, which is a technology based on carbon nanotubes. According to an FAQ on the website of Surrey Nanosystems, the creator of Vantablack, it seems that what Sir Anish has a licence to is a variant of Vantablack, known as Vantablack S-VIS:

Vantablack is generally not suitable for use in art due to the way in-which it’s made. Vantablack S-VIS also requires specialist application to achieve its aesthetic effect. In addition, the coating’s performance beyond the visible spectrum results in it being classified as a dual-use material that is subject to UK Export Control. We have therefore chosen to license Vantablack S-VIS exclusively to Kapoor Studios UK to explore its use in works of art. This exclusive licence limits the coating’s use in the field of art, but does not extend to any other sectors.

Let’s leave the interesting export-controls point to another day. It is not entirely clear what IP is being licensed, though presumably there is at least some know-how involved. Another FAQ indicates that:

Vantablack is a globally registered trademark and recognised brand owned by Surrey NanoSystems Limited. Companies would need written permission from SNS to use the Vantablack name in their products.

Incensed by Sir Anish’s actions in taking this exclusive licence, and the consequent restraint on artistic freedom, fellow artist Mr Stuart Semple has created the “pinkest pink” and is selling pots of the stuff, subject to the following condition:

Note: By adding this product to your cart you onfirm [sic] that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this paint will not make it’s [sic] way into that [sic] hands of Anish Kapoor.

Sir Anish has apparently responded to this provocation with a photograph of (inter alia) his hand:

pink

According to Surrey Nanosystems, one of the stated benefits of Vantablack is “its ability to absorb light energy and convert it to heat”. Mmm…

Readers are invited to comment on whether they think the contractual restriction on supply to Anish Kapoor is enforceable, and what the measure of damages for breach of contract might be.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Contract drafting, Humour, Intellectual Property, Licensing

Leading UK licensing lawyers 2017

leaguesFor several years, this blog has produced a table of leading IP licensing lawyers, created by the simple but imperfect method of identifying all the lawyers who are recommended in both of the following directories for that year:

(a) the IAM Patent 1000 list of leading UK patent licensing lawyers; and

(b) the Chambers Directory list of leading UK transactional lawyers in the field of life sciences.

The latter list  was published earlier today; the IAM list was published some months ago.

So, who is on the IP Draughts list for 2017? Drum roll…

Laura Anderson  Bristows LLP
Mark Anderson  Anderson Law LLP
Malcolm Bates  Taylor Wessing LLP
Alison Dennis  Fieldfisher LLP
Patrick Duxbury  Gowling WLG
Jim Ford  Allen & Overy LLP
Michael Gavey  Simmons & Simmons LLP
Mark A Lubbock  Ashurst LLP
Nicola Maguire  Cooley LLP
Lucinda Osborne  Covington & Burling LLP
Daniel Pavin  Covington & Burling LLP
Stephen Reese  Olswang LLP
Chris Shelley  Penningtons Manches LLP
Sally Shorthose  Bird & Bird LLP
John Wilkinson  Cooley LLP

 

Most of the names on this list have been on the list for several years. A few names have dropped off but there are no new names. As a result, there are 15 names on the above list compared to 20 last year.

vennAn advantage of this list over the Chambers Directory list is that this list omits some individuals who are really corporate lawyers rather than IP lawyers. A disadvantage of this list is that it omits some fine IP lawyers who are not particularly focused on life science work, eg Matthew Warren of Bristows, or who are up-and-coming (eg IP Draughts’ partner Lisa Allebone, who has been named in the IP section of Chambers Directory for the first time).

Despite these defects, the list continues to be a fairly good indicator of the leading technology licensing lawyers in England and Wales.

Congratulation to all who appear!

Leave a comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Legal practice, Licensing, News

Ignore the IP clause. Examine the parties’ conduct.

twiceThis is a tale about a company that sold the same IP twice, according to some contracts that it signed. But don’t worry, children, because the parties didn’t really believe that the second contract was meant to sell the IP, even though it said that it did. Oh, and it’s also about a confidentiality clause in a licence agreement that meant what it said. Even though the defendant argued that it shouldn’t be taken literally.

The case is called Process Components Ltd v Kason Kek-Gardner Ltd [2016] EWHC 2198 (Ch) (05 September 2016). Don’t bother reading it. It’s not going to change the course of English law. It describes some typical legal argy-bargy that happens when a commercial dispute gets to court. IP Draughts has read it, so that you don’t have to. But it does raise some practice-related issues that should be of interest to transactional IP lawyers. These are summarised below.

Selling the same IP twice

First, the sale of the IP. The two contracts in question were for the sale of different parts of a business, to different purchasers. The assets sold in the first contract (Contract 1) included “£1,350,000 for the Goodwill, the IT system and the Intellectual Property Rights”. The Intellectual Property Rights were defined as:

the full benefit (subject to the obligations) of all patents, registered designs, the Trade Marks, service marks, copyrights, know-how, technical and/or research and development information, drawings, specifications, domain names, computer programs and all licences, rights to protection and applications for registration and rights to apply for registration relating to such matters used by the Seller in the Business…

Let’s leave aside the excruciatingly bad drafting of this definition – for example, what is the word “licences” doing in the fourth line, lumped together with pre-registration rights to IP? In court, the parties’ counsel managed to find ways of arguing about the construction of this definition, eg by breaking it up into 3 parts and arguing that the final phrase only qualified one of those parts. All too tedious to discuss further.

Instead, let’s compare this definition with its equivalent in Contract 2. The same solicitor, who is named in the judgment, apparently drafted both contracts and, according to the judge, “plainly used [Contract 1] as a template for [Contract 2]”. Contract 2 provided for the sale of certain assets, including “the Business Name, the Commercial Information, the Contracts, the Equipment, the Goodwill, the Intellectual Property Rights, and the Work-In-Progress”. In Contract 2, Intellectual Property Rights are defined as:

the full benefit (subject to the obligations) of all patents, registered designs, trade and service marks, copyrights, know-how, technical and/or research and development information, drawings, specifications, domain names, computer programs and all licences, rights to protection and applications for registration and rights to apply for registration relating to such matters used by [the seller] in the Business…

Now, there are ways of trying to distinguish the two definitions, eg that the definitions of Business are different in each case, or that the dates of use by the seller are different. But the judge found that these definitions mostly covered the same IP. And at least one of the commercial representatives of the parties to Contract 2 was surprised to see this definition in the draft contract, but preferred not to rock the boat by querying it.

So, the first lesson of this sermon is: take care in drafting IP definitions. Don’t just cut and paste from an earlier contract. Obvious, really. Or it should be.

Legal snowstorm

Given the apparent conflict between the two contracts, what was the judge supposed to do about it? For example, should she:

  1. darlingDecide that Contract 2 couldn’t ‘bite’ on any of the seller’s IP, as it had already been sold under Contract 1? Or
  2. Treat the buyer under Contract 2 as a bona fide purchaser without notice (sometimes quaintly known as ‘equity’s darling’) of Contract 1?
  3. Treat both buyers as purchasers, so that they became co-owners in different fields?

The parties’ respective counsel slugged away at one another, trying every legal principle in the book to persuade the judge to see it their client’s way. Among the principles mentioned in the judgment are:

  • The admissibility of pre-contract negotiations to show a matrix of fact
  • Rectification
  • Construction
  • Common assumption
  • Estoppel by convention
  • Estoppel by misrepresentation
  • Coming to equity with clean hands

On the facts before her, the judge found that the buyer under Contract 2 was estopped from denying that the buyer under Contract 1 owned the relevant IP.

A practice-related lesson here is that focussing just on the wording of the two contracts doesn’t tell us how a court is going to decide on a complex set of facts. Who said (or didn’t say) what to whom may affect the outcome more than the contractual wording.

Licence agreement – estoppel issue

At around the same time as Contract 2 was made, the buyer under that contract entered into a licence agreement with the buyer under Contract 1, under which the Buyer 1 licensed to Buyer 2 a package of IP that seems to have overlapped with the IP that was the subject of the dispute above.

Buyer 2 argued that it didn’t know the content of Contract 1 when it entered into the licence agreement, and did so to protect its position in case it turned out that the IP had been transferred under Contract 1 and not under Contract 2.

It seems that Buyer 2’s acceptance of the licence, and failure to query the ownership of the IP with Buyer 1, led to the estoppel mentioned earlier.

A possible practice point here is that Buyer 2 should have at least sent Buyer 1 a letter in which it flagged up this issue and stated that it “reserved all its rights”.

Licence agreement – confidentiality and termination

It might not have mattered whether Buyer 2 was the owner of the IP, as long as it continued to have a licence from Buyer 1. But Buyer 1 had terminated the licence agreement for breach of a confidentiality obligation.

The relevant clauses of the licence agreement were:

  1. By clause 10.1 of the licence agreement, “each party agrees to keep the terms of this Agreement confidential…”
  2. By clause 11.2, a party could terminate the licence agreement “immediately by written notice to the other” for certain types of breach.
  3. By clause 11.2(a), those breaches included any material breach of the Agreement that was not capable of remedy. The final sentence of 11.2(a) stated that “breach of the confidentiality obligations under clause 10 constitutes a non-remediable material breach”.
  4. By clause 12.3, on termination of the agreement for any reason, the licensee was required to “cease to make any use of the Intellectual Property Rights”.

The facts relied on for termination are not entirely clear from the judgment, but it seems that Buyer 2 disclosed the terms of the licence agreement to a proposed investor.

Buyer 2 argued in court and in correspondence that:

  • it was absurd to allow the licensor to terminate the licence agreement for any disclosure of the terms, as this would include trivial breaches, ie those that were not material
  • the court would interpret these obligations as allowing appropriate disclosure of the terms of the licence agreement “on a confidential basis to a proposed investor”

The judge disagreed, and held that the licence agreement had been validly terminated.

This raises a very interesting practice issue, which has been mentioned on this blog before. IP Draughts understands that it is common for companies to provide details of its contracts to proposed investors or purchasers, even if those contracts include strict confidentiality provisions. Ever since IP Draughts first encountered this issue as a junior lawyer, he has been troubled by the apparent mismatch between commercial practice and contract terms. Sometimes, a pragmatic response to this concern is to point out that the disclosures are typically made in confidence, eg in a data room, or that the party whose confidentiality has been breached won’t suffer any loss from the breach.

etiquetteThe judge in this case dispelled both of these lazy assumptions. She couldn’t see why a term should be implied allowing a party to disclose in confidence to a prospective investor. She pointed out that the CDA between Buyer 2 and the investor didn’t say anything about not using the information in a way that was detrimental to Buyer 1, who was not a party. IP Draughts suspects that the absence of such a clause is likely to be the case in most CDAs in this situation. And finally, the judge pointed out that the obligations under the CDA had expired at the time the licence agreement was terminated, so that the investor was no longer under a confidentiality obligation. This no doubt reflected the typically short duration of CDAs with investors.

The practice lesson here, in IP Draughts’ view, is that contracts mean what they say and a party should not expect the law to intervene to protect it if it is in breach, just because of dodgy commercial practice or bad habits in the market sector in which that party operates.

Leave a comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Legal Updates, Licensing

Antitrust issues in IP licensing: competing guidelines

ftcVia the IP Finance blog comes news of a proposed update to the current US Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, which date from 1995. Although he has read the US guidelines in the past, IP Draughts is much more familiar with the equivalent European Commission Guidelines and the associated block exemption regulation for technology transfer agreements.

The European rules seem to require much more attention for run-of-the-mill licence agreements than the US rules require. He doesn’t recall ever having had a US lawyer refer him to the US guidelines in relation to a transaction under negotiation that included a US territory, whereas European lawyers working on a licensing transaction will frequently have recourse to the EU guidelines and block exemption regulation when the territory of the licence includes all or part of the EU.

Looking at the redline version of the proposed US guidelines, issued by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, IP Draughts had several thoughts:

  1. The US guidelines are more positive about the pro-competitive effects of licensing than the EU guidelines. To take one detailed example, bans on the licensee selling competing products may be acceptable under the US rules (eg see section 4.1.2.1 of the guidelines), but would ring alarm bells in an EU setting, particularly if the competing product was developed by the licensee (eg see section 4.2.7 of the EU guidelines and Article 5(2) of the block exemption). In the absence of careful and detailed economic analysis, IP Draughts would need strong persuading that such a restriction could safely be included in an EU licence agreement.
  2. Many of the proposed changes to the 1995 US guidelines are technical and don’t make major changes to the antitrust analysis of licence agreements. Where substantive changes are made, they tend to move the guidelines in a more liberal direction, that is to say taking a more positive attitude to licensing. For example, the discussion of resale price maintenance indicates that vertical price restraints in licence agreements will be treated under the rule of reason rather than as per-se illegal, following an important Supreme Court decision in 2007.
  3. Particularly helpful to the practitioner are comments in the US guidelines about the main concern being horizontal agreements between competitors. As most IP licensing is not between competitors, and often has no horizontal element, this provides a very useful context to the analysis set out in the document. By contrast, though the EU guidelines express greater concerns about agreements between competitors, there are plenty of rules about agreements between non-competitors, eg in the block exemption, and no general suggestion that vertical agreements are to be treated much more favourably than horizontal ones.
  4. Not only are the US guidelines more positive about IP licensing, they are also more helpful than the equivalent EU guidelines in explaining, with numerous illustrative examples, where no significant antitrust issue will arise. By contrast, the EU guidelines use up far too much space in simply regurgitating what is permissible under the technology transfer block exemption.
  5. Where shall we three meet again? In Brussels or in Luxembourg?

    Where shall we three meet again? In Brussels or in Luxembourg?

    IP Draughts has heard it said that the thinking of those in the European Commission who are responsible for antitrust policy is strongly influenced by the approach of the US authorities. Certainly some of the economic concepts that are seen in the US guidelines, such as innovation and technology markets, have found their way into the EU guidelines and block exemption. But the way in which those concepts are used has a very different flavour in the EU model. It is as though the US concepts have been mixed up in the cooking pot with the desire to promote the EU single market, deep suspicion about IP rights generally as a monopolistic  right, a lack of experience of routine licence agreements, and a Mediterranean statist approach.

  6. IP Draughts was reminded that the US guidelines include a “safety zone” for certain types of agreement, which could be viewed as analogous to the EU block exemption regulation or to the EU Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance. Section 4.3 of the US guidelines places in the safety zone, among other agreements, licence agreements that meet both of the following criteria: (1) they are not “facially anticompetitive” – ie don’t include really bad terms; the equivalent expression in EU law is “hardcore clauses”; and (2) the collective market share of the parties does not exceed 20%. Where market shares cannot be determined, eg in some technology or R&D markets, an alternative to item (2) is that there are at least 4 competing technologies or 4 other parties that can engage in competing R&D.
  7. However, IP Draughts doubts whether this safety zone will be used much, given the more tolerant approach of the US guidelines to most IP licence agreements.

The differences between the US and EU approaches are sometimes found surprising by US clients and their US lawyers. Two points in particular may cause surprise: (1) the extent to which EU lawyers spend time looking at what is permissible under the relevant block exemption (there are other block exemptions for R&D agreements and for distribution agreements, among others), and (2) the difficulty of achieving legal certainty as to whether particular terms will be acceptable under EU antitrust laws. The unsatisfactory state of EU law may make it impossible for their lawyers to provide a quick, cheap and reliable answer to the antitrust questions that arise.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Competition law, Legal Updates, Licensing