Background Ip License Agreement

Many general agreements between companies may contain IP licensing clauses, for example. B: Grant back is a provision of an agreement where one party grants another the right to use its intellectual property, provided that the other party then agrees to grant a license to the licensor with respect to its intellectual property if the royalties are structured on the income of certain units or divisions, It can become very dangerous if the licensee undergoes a business reorganization. Re-organizations are often executed for more important reasons (e.g. B taxes) that will surpass the logic behind the IP logic – with potentially huge effects on royalties So it is likely that there will be some background IPRs in the software. However, it is questionable whether this intellectual property (unlike the software itself) was “used” in the cooperation. Note that the definition of substantive IPRs does not include information or software as such and that there is no other defined term, such as background information, which sometimes appears in such agreements. All commercial terms of such use of the background IP should ideally be dealt with in the commercial part of the agreement. This is the custom, for example, when intellectual property is granted by medical research institutes to large pharmaceutical companies in order to prevent new drugs from being exclusively authorized and then “buried” This formulation is being developed and can be revised in the light of readers` comments. An important difference from the wording cited at the beginning of this article is the lack of clear and immediate licenses for substantive IPRs. It is sometimes appropriate to include such licences in the cooperation agreement. But is it fair to include them as the default position in a presentation agreement? IP Draughts is not sure and would be happy to have proposals…

Наверх