Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Licensing Agreement Tag

BananaIP Counsels > Posts tagged "Licensing Agreement"

IP Policy and Process Set Up- Why wait for a wake up call!

The image depicts a warning sign, that reads' Warning. Authorised Personnel Only'. This depicts the idea behind IP protection that gives exclusive rights over the property. This post talks about the benifits of IP protection. Click on the image to read the full post.

First Publication Date: 27th December 2010 Intellectual Property Policy and Process set up is one branch of IP that has long been neglected by a majority of Indian companies especially the SMEs. Most Indian companies come to realize the importance of an IP Policy when they enter into negotiations/business deals/technology transfers with foreign companies or multinationals where the IP hygiene is relatively high. Such a wake-up call comes especially when Indian companies deal with companies from countries where the Intellectual Property laws are very well developed such as Europe, US, Japan, Korea and the like. Companies from these countries do not...

Continue reading

Licensing of Software Does Not Give Rise to Patent Exhaustion

First Publication Date: 20th September 2010 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the legal confusion that was existing on the application of the first sale doctrine or doctrine of patent exhaustion with respect to software licenses. The Court clarified that the exclusive distribution right is limited by the first sale doctrine, which is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. Further the Hon’ble Court held that the exclusive reproduction right is limited within the software and this affirmative defense is unavailable to those who are...

Continue reading

Media & Entertainment Law: Essential Clauses of a Digital License Agreement

With the development and widespread use of internet and digital networks, we are now witnessing a revolution as to how copyrighted contents are acquired, displayed and disseminated. In the pre-internet days, there were limited options for distribution and exhibition of copyrighted contents. For example, the distribution of cinematographic films was limited to cinema halls and video cassettes. The internet revolution has opened several doors for content owners by creating new modes and formats of exploitation. Licensing out, creative contents like cinematographic films or sound recording through digital platforms forms an integral part of the entertainment business. In this post we will...

Continue reading

Patent licensing agreement for Google and Verizon

Google has now entered into a patent cross selling agreement with Verizon after cutting similar deals with Cisco, Samsung and LG, in its pursuit to attain cutting-edge technology and fend off lawsuits. The contract will not give Google and Verizon access to each other’s patents, but will forbid them from filing lawsuits against each other over patent infringements of their existing patents as well as patents obtained by them over the next five years. The agreement will cover a wide range of products and technologies.   Google could have entered into the agreement to safeguard its interest in avoiding lawsuits over...

Continue reading

Crossing the Rubicon: A Fork in the Road – Go Right or Left?

Case Analysis of Dr. Aloys Wobben and another vs. Yogesh Mehra and others.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6718 OF 2013

Facts: Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) owns approximately 2,700 patents in more than 60 countries of which 100 patents are in India in the field of wind turbine generators and wind energy converters. Appellant was carrying out the manufacturing process in India through a joint venture partnership with the Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra (Enercon India Limited) (Respondents).

Intellectual Property licence agreements to use the technical know-how of the inventions, was granted to Enercon India Ltd. by the Appellant and further terminated due to the non-fulfillment of the obligations contained in the IP licence agreement. Respondents continued to use the Appellant’s patents without authorization and also filed 19 revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a few infringement suits before the High Court for which the Respondents filed their counter claim. Further, four other revocation petitions were filed by the Respondents before the IPAB. On January 20, 2012, the Delhi High Court held that both counter claim and revocation petition could be explored simultaneously against the same patent.

css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider