Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Licensee

A licensee is an individual, business, or organization that has been granted legal permission by a licensor to use specific assets, such as , , or other resources, typically under the terms of a licensing agreement that may involve fees, royalties, or . This permission is either express (written or verbal) or implied, but it does not confer to the underlying asset. In the context of business and law, licensees play a central role in commercial arrangements that enable the exploitation of branded or proprietary materials for mutual benefit. Common types include franchisees, who operate under a franchisor's trademarks and in a defined , such as fast-food outlets; brand licensees, who apply trademarks to merchandise like apparel or toys; and operating licensees, who receive authorization to conduct regulated activities, exemplified by holders of licenses or financial securities licenses. These agreements are prevalent in industries like , , pharmaceuticals, and , where licensees generate revenue through sales or usage while compensating the licensor, often fostering and market expansion without full transfer of control. In tort law, particularly premises liability, a licensee refers to a who enters or remains on another's with the owner's or , but for personal or purposes rather than interests. Unlike an invitee, who is on the for the owner's benefit and entitled to a higher (such as warnings about hidden dangers), a licensee receives only reasonable protection from known hazards and must generally take the "as is." Examples include guests visiting a or firefighters entering during ; owners owe licensees a to avoid willful or wanton but not to inspect for latent defects. This distinction varies by jurisdiction, with some states like emphasizing written s and others imposing specific disclosure obligations on licensors. In both legal domains, the licensee-licensor relationship underscores as the foundational element, balancing access with defined responsibilities to prevent unauthorized use or harm.

Definition and Terminology

Core Definition

A licensee is the party to whom a has been granted, receiving limited rights or permissions from a licensor to use, produce, or access specific subject matter, such as , trademarks, or operational rights. This arrangement allows the licensee to engage in activities that would otherwise be prohibited without the licensor's authority. A represents contractual permission rather than a of , with the licensor retaining to the underlying asset while granting the licensee temporary or restricted access. Unless explicitly stated as irrevocable, such are generally revocable by the licensor at will, particularly before the licensee incurs substantial expenses in reliance thereon. The term "licensee" originates from English principles of and contract, tracing back to 16th- and 17th-century feudal land grants where licenses provided authority to act on another's without creating an or therein. These early , often requiring formal deeds for validity, evolved from personal privileges in feudal systems—such as permissions to alienate land—to modern applications in contexts, where licenses facilitate controlled use without ownership conveyance. Basic examples include a software who accepts an (EULA) to install and operate , or a franchisee granted to operate a under a brand's and operational guidelines.

Key Distinctions from Licensor

The primary distinction between a licensee and a licensor lies in their respective positions within an intellectual property () licensing arrangement, where the licensor serves as the owner or controller of the IP and grants permission for its use, while the licensee receives limited to exploit it under specified conditions. This relational dynamic establishes the licensor as the grantor of rights, typically retaining full ownership of patents, copyrights, , or other IP assets, whereas the licensee obtains only a non-exclusive or exclusive permission to engage in activities such as , selling, or distributing the IP without acquiring any proprietary interest. A core asymmetry in control underscores this relationship: the licensor maintains ultimate authority over the by imposing restrictions on , , , and duration, ensuring that the licensee's access remains temporary and revocable upon termination, without conferring any or transfer. In contrast, the licensee operates within these boundaries, gaining operational benefits like revenue generation from the but bearing the risks associated with its practical application, such as adaptation or compliance with quality standards set by the licensor. The following table enumerates key role distinctions between the licensor and licensee, highlighting their complementary yet hierarchical responsibilities:
AspectLicensor RoleLicensee Role
Ownership and GrantingRetains full ownership and usage via the license agreement.Receives and exercises limited, non-transferable without ownership.
Term Setting and AdherenceDefines and enforces license terms, including royalties, exclusivity, and restrictions.Adheres to terms, reports usage (e.g., sales volumes for royalty calculations), and seeks approvals for variations.
Compliance EnforcementMonitors and enforces licensee adherence, potentially terminating for breaches; may require quality controls.Maintains records, ensures product quality aligns with licensor standards, and notifies of potential infringements.
These roles reflect a structured power imbalance designed to protect the licensor's value while enabling the licensee's commercial exploitation. Legally, this distinction carries significant implications for allocation, where the licensor typically warrants the validity of its and may indemnify the licensee against third-party claims of pre-existing infringement, but limits its exposure to the licensee's downstream activities. Conversely, the licensee assumes primary responsibility for risks arising from misuse, such as claims or infringement due to modifications, often providing indemnities to the licensor in return for the granted access. This framework ensures that the licensor's control over core integrity is preserved, while the licensee navigates operational liabilities inherent to its permitted uses.

Licensing Agreements

A licensing agreement is a foundational between a licensor and a licensee that outlines the terms under which the licensee is granted permission to use the licensor's , such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets. These agreements are essential for defining the boundaries of the licensee's usage rights while protecting the licensor's interests, and they vary in complexity depending on the nature of the property and the parties involved. Typically drafted by attorneys, such agreements ensure clarity to prevent disputes and are governed by contract law principles. Key components of a standard licensing agreement include the grant , which explicitly states the permission given to the licensee to use the for specified purposes. The scope of the further delineates limitations, such as territorial restrictions (e.g., exclusive rights in versus global access) and duration (e.g., a five-year or indefinite period). Royalties or fees provisions detail the financial arrangements, often structured as a of , lump-sum payments, or milestone-based compensation, to compensate the licensor for the granted rights. provisions are also standard, requiring both parties to safeguard exchanged during the agreement's and beyond. Licensing agreements formalize various types of licenses to suit different commercial needs. Perpetual licenses grant indefinite use without an expiration date, providing long-term stability for the licensee, whereas term-limited licenses restrict usage to a defined period, after which rights may revert or require renewal. Worldwide licenses allow global exploitation of the , ideal for digital products, while regional licenses confine rights to specific geographies, such as the , to manage market strategies or comply with local variations. The process for licensing agreements typically begins with , where the potential licensee verifies the validity and enforceability of the licensor's , including checking for existing patents or trademarks through official registries. clauses are a critical negotiation point, obligating the licensor to defend the licensee against third-party claims of infringement and cover related legal costs, thereby mitigating risks for the licensee. This process often involves iterative discussions on terms to mutual benefits. In the digital era, licensing agreements have evolved to address software and online distribution challenges, incorporating provisions for and updates. Open-source licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), represent a significant shift by requiring licensees to share any modifications or derivative works under the same terms, fostering collaborative development while ensuring the software remains freely accessible. These agreements stem from obligations outlined in the , influencing how licensees operate within ecosystems like software repositories.

Regulatory Considerations

Licensees must navigate a complex landscape of jurisdiction-specific regulations that impose mandatory requirements beyond the terms of private licensing agreements. , the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. § 115 establishes compulsory licenses for the and distribution of nondramatic musical works in phonorecords, allowing licensees to obtain such upon notice to the owner and payment of statutory royalties without needing individual , provided the primary purpose is public distribution for private use. This mechanism balances protection with access for music licensees, such as record labels or streaming services. Similarly, in the , Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU) prohibits anti-competitive agreements, including licensing arrangements that restrict competition, such as those limiting parallel trade or imposing undue territorial restraints on . The European Commission's Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation provides a safe harbor for certain pro-competitive licenses but excludes those with hardcore restrictions like or output limitations. Compliance burdens on licensees often arise from export controls and antitrust oversight, particularly in and commercial licensing. Under the (ITAR), codified at 22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130, licensees handling articles or services, including technical data transferred via licenses, must obtain export licenses from the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for any deemed , reexport, or of controlled items to foreign persons, even within the U.S., to prevent unauthorized . Failure to comply can result in severe penalties, imposing significant on licensees in or sectors. Additionally, U.S. antitrust authorities, through the (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), scrutinize exclusive licensing deals under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act; for instance, arrangements that foreclose competition by preventing licensees from dealing with rivals may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act if they substantially lessen competition in relevant markets. The 2017 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of emphasize that such exclusivity is evaluated based on market effects rather than IP nature. International treaties further shape regulatory frameworks for licensees by establishing baseline protections and constraints on cross-border operations. The for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, administered by the (WIPO), ensures automatic protection in over 180 member states without formalities, facilitating cross-border licensing by granting foreign authors the same as nationals and prohibiting formalities that could hinder enforcement. This national treatment principle simplifies licensing negotiations for literary, artistic, and musical works across borders but requires licensees to respect and duration standards varying by jurisdiction. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Rights (TRIPS), part of the (WTO) framework, mandates minimum standards for IP protection among its 164 members, including provisions under Article 40 that allow regulation of abusive licensing practices restraining competition, such as those tying unrelated products or imposing excessive royalties. TRIPS thus empowers WTO members to impose compulsory licenses in emergencies while prohibiting discrimination in licensing enforcement. As of 2025, evolving regulations continue to impact licensees, particularly in data and emerging technologies. In the , the Data Act, effective September 12, 2025, complements the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by mandating fair access and sharing of data generated by connected products and services, affecting licensees in data licensing agreements through requirements for model contractual terms on and use, which the was required to develop by September 2025 but has not yet finalized as of November 2025, to prevent lock-in and promote competition. A proposal for GDPR simplifications, published in May 2025 and included in the Digital Omnibus package proposed on November 19, 2025, aims to reduce record-keeping burdens for low-risk processing while maintaining strict consent and transparency obligations for data licensees handling personal information. On November 19, 2025, the proposed the Digital Omnibus package, which includes simplifications to and privacy rules that could affect data licensing agreements. In the United States, -related regulations increasingly influence licensing, directing risk management for high-impact systems, including IP licensing considerations.

Rights and Obligations

Licensee Rights

Licensee under licensing agreements fundamentally include the permission to use the licensed property within the explicitly defined scope, such as , , , or public performance for copyrights, or manufacture and for patents. This grant of use is the cornerstone of the agreement, enabling the licensee to exploit the IP commercially or otherwise as delineated in the contract's terms, including any limitations on territory, duration, or field of use. Where the agreement expressly allows, licensees hold the right to sublicense the to third parties, facilitating further or sub-commercialization while the licensor retains oversight through approval mechanisms or shares. Exclusive licensees may enforce the licensed against third-party infringers, but standing to initiate infringement lawsuits generally requires that the license conveys all substantial rights under the or that the licensor joins the suit. Beyond express provisions, implied rights protect licensees' interests under and statutory frameworks. A key implied right is quiet enjoyment, ensuring the licensee's undisturbed possession and use of the free from or substantial by the licensor or superior claimants, akin to protections in leases and applicable in jurisdictions like the under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Licensors also imply a warranty of non-infringement, assuring that the licensee's exercise of does not violate third-party , with breaches potentially triggering indemnification obligations. In cases of licensor breach, such as failing to maintain the licensed property—for instance, neglecting to renew a trademark registration—licensees may pursue remedies including injunctive relief to halt the breach, compensatory damages for resulting losses like lost profits or rebranding costs, and contract termination to reclaim rights. These remedies balance the licensee's affirmative protections against the licensor's obligations, ensuring accountability without overlapping into licensee duties.

Licensee Obligations

Licensees are typically required to fulfill primary financial and operational duties under licensing agreements to ensure the licensor receives appropriate compensation and the licensed () is used appropriately. These duties include the of royalties, which may be structured as fixed fees, lump-sum payments, or percentage-based amounts calculated on sales or derived from the licensed . For instance, royalty rates commonly range from 1% to 15% of sales, depending on factors such as the technology's maturity, exclusivity, and norms, with minimum annual royalties often stipulated to guarantee a baseline revenue stream for the licensor. Accurate reporting of usage, sales, or sublicensing activities is another core obligation, requiring licensees to submit periodic statements—often quarterly—detailing relevant financial data and maintaining accessible records for verification. Additionally, licensees must adhere to quality standards, particularly in licensing, where the mandates that licensors exercise control over licensees to maintain uniform product or service quality and prevent abandonment; this often involves contractual provisions ensuring goods meet or exceed specified benchmarks. To safeguard the licensor's interests, licensing agreements frequently incorporate non-disclosure and non-compete clauses that impose strict and competitive restrictions on the licensee. Non-disclosure provisions require licensees to protect the licensor's —such as trade secrets, know-how, or data—with the same degree of care as their own, limiting its use solely to the purposes outlined in the agreement and prohibiting disclosure to third parties ; these obligations typically persist for a defined period, such as five years after termination. Non-compete clauses, while varying by and agreement, aim to prevent overlap by restricting the licensee's activities in competing fields or territories, thereby protecting the licensor's and position; such clauses are enforceable when they reasonably protect legitimate interests without unduly restraining trade. Licensees also bear significant liability for misuse of the licensed , including an to indemnify the licensor against third-party claims arising from the licensee's activities. Indemnification clauses standardly require the licensee to hold the licensor harmless from demands, losses, or liabilities—such as those related to product defects, , or infringement claims—stemming from the development, manufacture, or sale of products under the , covering defense costs, settlements, and . In patent licensing contexts, this extends to for any infringement resulting from the licensee's unauthorized modifications or exceedances of the licensed scope, where the licensee assumes responsibility for ensuring compliance and mitigating risks. Finally, licensors are granted audit rights to enforce compliance with reporting and payment obligations, allowing inspection of the licensee's relevant records during normal business hours upon reasonable notice. These audits verify sales figures, royalty calculations, and usage, with the licensee typically bearing the costs if discrepancies exceed a threshold, such as 5% underreporting. Penalties for underreporting often include interest on unpaid royalties, commonly at rates of 18% or higher per annum, along with potential recovery of audit expenses and, in severe cases, additional liquidated damages to deter noncompliance.

Types of Licensees

In Intellectual Property

In intellectual property law, a licensee acquires specific rights tailored to the type of IP involved, such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks, while bearing obligations that safeguard the licensor's interests and the IP's validity. These arrangements enable the exploitation of protected innovations, creative works, or brands under defined terms, often varying by jurisdiction to balance innovation incentives with public access. For patent licensees, the primary rights include the authority to manufacture, use, or sell the patented invention within the licensed scope, typically as outlined in the licensing agreement. However, licensees must comply with marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287, which mandates affixing the word "patent" or the patent number to patented articles to provide public notice; failure to do so can limit the licensor's damages recovery against third-party infringers to the period after actual notice is given. This obligation prevents inadvertent invalidation of enforcement rights and ensures the patent's notice function is upheld. Copyright licensees, particularly those handling derivative works, receive permissions to create adaptations, translations, or modifications of the original work under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2), allowing commercial exploitation like film adaptations or remixes while paying royalties to the licensor. In jurisdictions like France, moral rights—encompassing the right to attribution and integrity of the work—are inalienable and cannot be waived via contract, necessitating agreements that respect these perpetual protections under Article L.121-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code to avoid nullification of licensing terms. Additionally, compulsory mechanical licenses for reproducing musical compositions in phonorecords operate at statutory rates, such as 12.7 cents per reproduction or 2.45 cents per minute of playing time (whichever is greater) in the United States as of 2025, enabling cover recordings without negotiation but with mandatory payments to the copyright owner. Trademark licensees are granted to use the mark in connection with approved goods or services, but they must adhere to strict standards imposed by the licensor to maintain the mark's distinctiveness and avoid abandonment. U.S. , such as Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc. (267 F.2d 358, 2d Cir. 1959), illustrates the risks of "naked licensing," where insufficient oversight by the licensor can lead to loss of rights due to consumer confusion or genericide; thus, licensees are obligated to follow specified quality protocols, with the licensor retaining approval over product standards to preserve validity. A key risk for IP licensees across these fields is the doctrine of , which in trademark contexts prevents challengers from disputing the licensor's mark validity after accepting benefits under the , as affirmed in cases applying licensee estoppel to bar such claims. Although the U.S. in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (395 U.S. 653, 1969) abolished broad licensee estoppel in patent law to promote validity challenges, contractual no-challenge clauses or equitable estoppel may still apply in limited scenarios, underscoring the need for licensees to conduct thorough before entering agreements.

In Commercial and Software Licensing

In commercial licensing, licensees frequently engage through models, granting them rights to operate under the licensor's established , systems, and in exchange for ongoing fees and compliance with operational standards. A prominent example is McDonald's , where licensees pay a of 4% to 5% of monthly gross , alongside base rent or percentage-based rent and an initial license fee, to access the and support services. Franchisees must secure site approval from the franchisor to ensure alignment with standards, and they are obligated to contribute to funds, typically 4% of gross , for and local marketing initiatives that benefit the entire network. These arrangements emphasize operational control by the licensor while allowing licensees to leverage proven business formats for revenue generation. In software licensing, licensees are bound by end-user license agreements (EULAs) that outline permitted uses and restrictions to safeguard the licensor's proprietary technology, often explicitly prohibiting , decompilation, or creation of derivative works. (Software as a Service) licenses provide hosted access on a subscription basis, including automatic updates, , and scalability features without granting access, contrasting with perpetual licenses that allow indefinite use of a downloaded version after a one-time but typically exclude ongoing updates unless additional fees are paid. Licensees under these models face unique obligations, such as ensuring data privacy compliance; for instance, those operating in California must adhere to the (CCPA), which requires providing consumers with rights to access, delete, or of personal data sales, applicable to software handling user information. Cloud software licenses further impose scalability limits, such as caps on concurrent users, calls, or storage volumes, to manage resource allocation and prevent overuse, with violations potentially triggering additional fees or termination. Specific examples illustrate these dynamics in regulated sectors. Pharmaceutical distribution licensees must obtain state licenses compliant with FDA standards under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), including annual reporting of licensure details and maintaining pedigree records for prescription drugs to ensure integrity and prevent counterfeiting. In , licensees under app store agreements, such as Apple's or , pay commissions of 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions, reduced to 15% for developers with annual proceeds under $1 million, as of 2025, while adhering to platform guidelines on content and data handling. These structures balance licensee access to distribution channels with licensor revenue models and oversight.

Termination and Enforcement

Grounds for Termination

Licensing agreements commonly provide for termination based on material by the licensee, including failure to pay royalties or fees and unauthorized use or distribution of the licensed . These provisions typically require the licensor to notify the licensee of the , granting a period—often 30 days—for the licensee to remedy the violation and avoid termination. If the remains uncured, the licensor may then terminate the agreement, thereby revoking the licensee's rights to use the property. In addition to breach-based triggers, licensors often include clauses, allowing them to end the agreement without cause after providing advance notice, such as 30 to 90 days. This right is particularly prevalent in non-exclusive licenses, where the licensor retains flexibility to grant rights to others or discontinue the arrangement for business reasons. Licenses may also terminate automatically upon expiration of the agreed term or through specific events like the licensee's . Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code § 365, licenses are treated as executory contracts, which the may assume or reject, while clauses permitting automatic termination upon the licensee's filing are generally unenforceable during the case. Following termination, certain obligations survive to protect the licensor's interests, including and non-disclosure provisions that remain in effect indefinitely or for a specified period. tail periods are also common, requiring the licensee to report and pay royalties on sales of licensed products for 6 to 12 months after termination to account for or ongoing use.

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Dispute resolution mechanisms in licensing agreements prioritize procedural efficiency to address conflicts between licensors and licensees without immediate recourse to full litigation. Contractual provisions commonly incorporate clauses, often governed by the rules of the (AAA), which facilitate binding decisions by neutral arbitrators and are widely used in and licensing disputes to ensure confidentiality and speed. is frequently mandated as a preliminary step before arbitration or court proceedings, allowing parties to negotiate settlements with the assistance of a mediator, thereby preserving business relationships in licensing contexts. Additionally, parties in U.S. licensing agreements typically select as the governing law due to its well-developed corporate and predictable contract interpretation, which minimizes uncertainty in dispute outcomes. When contractual mechanisms fail, litigation provides structured options, particularly for disputes. In cases involving import-related infringements, the U.S. International Trade Commission () exercises specialized under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, enabling complainants to seek exclusion orders against infringing goods entering the U.S., even without over foreign respondents. This forum is advantageous for licensees facing unauthorized imports that violate licensing terms, as it focuses on rapid investigations—typically concluding within 12-18 months—and results in remedies enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Alternative dispute resolution trends are evolving to address the technical and digital nature of modern licensing. For software licenses, (ODR) platforms are gaining traction, offering virtual and to resolve issues like usage and fee disputes remotely, reducing costs and logistical barriers for global parties. Expert determination serves as another targeted method, particularly for royalty calculations, where independent experts analyze comparable agreements and market data to issue binding valuations, avoiding protracted court battles over financial metrics. A landmark decision shaping these mechanisms is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006), which rejected the presumption of permanent injunctions in cases and required courts to apply a traditional four-factor equitable test—considering irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, balance of hardships, and —before granting injunctive relief in licensee-licensor disputes. This shift has encouraged more nuanced resolutions, such as ongoing royalties over outright bans, influencing how licensing conflicts are managed to avoid disproportionate business disruptions.

References

  1. [1]
    Licensee: Definition and Types - Investopedia
    Sep 7, 2024 · A licensee is any individual, business, organization that has been granted legal permission, or certain rights by another entity who owns certain assets.
  2. [2]
    Licensee: Understanding Your Rights and Responsibilities
    Definition & meaning. A licensee is an individual or entity that has been granted permission to use specific property owned by another party, known as the ...
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    Definition of LICENSEE
    ### Summary of Licensee Definitions (Legal and Property Contexts)
  5. [5]
    licensee | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    licensee. The party in possession of a license. Licensees have been granted limited rights or permissions by a licensor in the form of a license.Missing: contract | Show results with:contract
  6. [6]
    license | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    A “license” is permission granted by a qualified authority permitting a licensee to do something that would otherwise be prohibited.
  7. [7]
    Foundations of Law - License Distinguished - Lawshelf
    A license is fully revocable by the grantor of the license. In addition, unlike an easement in gross, a license is not an interest in land. It merely allows ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] The Revocability of Licenses as Applied to Property in Land
    They may be revoked at any time, except, in some states, after the licensee has incurred expense under the license, and they are not assignable." 2(1672) ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] The Law of License
    Sarrell,Vaughan,35I. The term has not always conveyed the same meaning. It was one of the old rules of law that a license could not be pleaded unless it ...
  10. [10]
    Licenses in Real Property Law - jstor
    licence." The term "license" had early been applied to a different species of interest, still earlier called "liberties, ...
  11. [11]
    Licensing Agreement Guide: Types, Clauses, Benefits & Risks - Sirion
    Oct 10, 2025 · Here are a few examples: Software: The End-User License Agreement (EULA) you click “accept” on is a copyright license granting you permission to ...
  12. [12]
    The Basics of Licensing in Franchising - Lusthaus Law P.C.
    Dec 20, 2023 · Franchising is a strategy for business expansion whereby one party licenses its trademark or brand name and method of business operation to ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] IP Licensing Handbook - Bristows LLP
    A licence is simply a permission given by the owner of the relevant intellectual property rights. (licensor) to a user (licensee) to do something which the ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Licensing: Licensor and Licensee Perspectives - WIPO
    You need to define very carefully what you are licensing. • Any kind of intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, source code, designs, ...
  15. [15]
    What Is a Licensing Agreement? - Icertis
    Apr 25, 2025 · The licensor owns a particular intellectual property (IP) and grants the licensee the right to use this IP under certain conditions.
  16. [16]
    Scope, fees, IP, relief: Mastering the elements of good licensing
    Apr 5, 2021 · A key aspect of a licence is that the licensor is granting rights but not ownership. Licence agreements therefore typically acknowledge that ...
  17. [17]
    licensing-agreements-what-every-service-business-should-know
    Typically, the licensor agrees to defend the licensee against third-party claims arising from the use of the product or service, such as a claim that the ...Missing: roles responsibilities
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty ... - EUR-Lex
    Jul 21, 2023 · Individual assessment of R&D agreements under Article 101(1) . ... R&D agreements that generally do not restrict competition .
  19. [19]
    International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) - DDTC
    ITAR implements the Arms Export Control Act, governing the export and temporary import of defense articles and services. It is part of the Code of Federal  ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property
    Jan 12, 2017 · A license that does not explicitly require exclusive dealing may have the effect of exclusive dealing if it is structured to increase ...
  21. [21]
    intellectual property (TRIPS) - agreement text - standards - WTO
    Article 40. 1. Members agree that some licensing practices or conditions pertaining to intellectual property rights which restrain competition may have adverse ...
  22. [22]
    intellectual property (TRIPS) - agreement text - standards - WTO
    1. Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members shall not have rights or ...
  23. [23]
    Data protection - European Commission
    Simplifying compliance with the GDPR through reduced record-keeping obligations. In May 2025, the Commission adopted a Single Market Simplification proposal to ...Legal framework of EU data... · Data protection explained · Law by topic
  24. [24]
    Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion - Federal Register
    Jan 15, 2025 · This rule requires a license to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) advanced computing ICs or the model weights of the most advanced AI ...
  25. [25]
    7 Must-Have Clauses in a Copyright License Agreement
    Sep 30, 2024 · The “Grant of Rights” clause is the backbone of any copyright license agreement. This clause defines what rights the licensor is giving to the ...
  26. [26]
    What Do the Terms Mean in My Intellectual Property License
    Jan 12, 2022 · An exclusive license means that the licensee is the only person allowed to exercise the rights granted in the license; even the IP owner is not allowed to ...A Guide To Licensing... · Sublicensable Vs... · Field Of Use License Law
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Intellectual Property Licensing Strategies - Sheppard Mullin
    Whether an exclusive licensee has standing to sue for infringement, then, depends on the rights granted under the license agreement and whether the agreement is ...
  28. [28]
    Software licensing: it ain't necessarily so… - IP Draughts
    Oct 18, 2014 · The incorporation of implied warranties into the contract, eg in the UK warranties of title and quiet enjoyment under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
    An implied warranty of non-infringement would seem to be just under some circumstances and would seem to be unjust under other circumstances, and therefore ...
  30. [30]
    Enforcing a Breached Licensing Agreement | Hendershot Cowart, P.C.
    Sep 15, 2021 · Injunction, or other equitable remedy · Actual damages, such as lost royalty fees · Cancellation of the contract · Remedies dictated by the ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] License Agreements After Mission Product Pamela S. Chestek
    Since the licensor cannot be compelled to perform, the licensee's only remedy would be damages for the licensor's breach of contract. Should the licensee ...Missing: maintain | Show results with:maintain
  32. [32]
    Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. | 464 U.S. 417 ...
    Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use. Pp. 464 U. S. 428-434.
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Exchanging Value - Negotiating Technology Licensing Agreements
    In contrast, a licensing agreement transfers from the licensor to the licensee the right to use the intellectual property in the technology and to make, use ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] ANATOMY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE AND OPTION ...
    MAJOR ELEMENTS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT. ➢ Administrative Obligations. ➢ License agreement will impose obligations on licensee for: ➢ Timing of payments due ...
  35. [35]
    Informal Staff Advisory Opinion 00-3 | Federal Trade Commission
    The Commission has long recognized that trademark license holders have an obligation under the Lanham Act to exercise control over a licensee to ensure that ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] trademark license agreement
    Quality Control. Licensee agrees that goods or services associated with the Mark will be of high quality, at least equal to or better than the quality of ...
  37. [37]
    Enforceability of Non-Compete Clauses – A Case Study | News
    Oct 26, 2023 · These clauses are intended to protect the licensor's/employer's legitimate interests in its trade secrets, confidential know-how or other ...Missing: disclosure obligations
  38. [38]
    The Indemnification Clause: What You Need to Know - Duke OTC
    Indemnification is a standard part of every License Agreement that the Office of Licensing & Ventures (OTC) negotiates. In fact, it is a critical term in those ...
  39. [39]
    Indemnification Sample Clauses | The University of Texas System
    Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Board, System, University, its Regents, officers, employees and agents from and against any claims, demands, or ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Tort Liability That May Attach to Intellectual Property Licensing, 13 J ...
    As between the licensor and licensee, the licensor is a logical companion for risk dividing under developing law of comparative negligence and contribution. ...
  41. [41]
    Auditing Self-Reporting Agreements - Stout
    Sep 1, 2010 · Royalty audits often identify underreported royalties for a number of reasons, including incorrect royalty calculations and unlicensed sales.
  42. [42]
    Are Your IP License Agreements Undervalued? What to Consider ...
    Nov 28, 2022 · A 20-year empirical study on royalty errors prepared by InvotexIP Audit Statistics broke down the frequency of underreporting by error type.
  43. [43]
    35 U.S. Code § 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies
    A person who has marked, in the manner prescribed by subsection (a), the number of the process patent on all products made by the patented process which have ...
  44. [44]
    37 CFR § 385.11 - Royalty rates. - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The royalty rate payable for each work embodied in the phonorecord or Permanent Download shall be either 12.7 cents or 2.45 cents per minute of playing time or ...Missing: compulsory | Show results with:compulsory
  45. [45]
    Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d ...
    Plaintiff's failure to license its trademarks in defendant's trading area during the thirty odd years that have elapsed since it licensed them to a Rochester ...Missing: 1966 | Show results with:1966
  46. [46]
    The Financials - McDonald's
    Ongoing Fees ; Royalty: 4%-5% of monthly gross sales ; Rent: a monthly base rent and/or percentage rent that is a percentage of monthly gross sales. ; License Fee: ...Missing: obligations | Show results with:obligations
  47. [47]
    What is an End User License Agreement (EULA)? - Icertis
    Jan 7, 2025 · Common restrictions include prohibitions against reverse engineering the code, creating derivative works, or redistributing the software to ...
  48. [48]
    SaaS vs. Perpetual Software: 8 Key Differences - Sylogist
    Jan 11, 2022 · Both SaaS and perpetually licensed software may have recurring fees for support, training, and updates. For SaaS solutions, the relatively low ...Saas Licensing · Perpetual Licensing · The Cloud Vs. On-Prem
  49. [49]
    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
    Mar 13, 2024 · The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) gives consumers more control over the personal information that businesses collect about them.
  50. [50]
    License Scalability and Flexibility - Wibu-Systems
    Jan 23, 2024 · Unlimited scalability enables stakeholders to seamlessly join a collaborative platform without the need for complex licensing negotiations while ...
  51. [51]
    Annual Licensure Reporting by Wholesale Drug Distributors ... - FDA
    Jun 12, 2024 · Wholesale drug distributors and third-party logistics providers must be appropriately licensed and report licensure and other information to FDA annually.
  52. [52]
    App Store Small Business Program - Apple Developer
    If a developer's proceeds fall below the 1 million USD threshold in a future calendar year, they can re-qualify for the 15% commission the year after.Missing: Google Play
  53. [53]
    IP licensing primer part three: Term and termination | Insights
    Jun 4, 2025 · It is common for licensing agreements to include a “cure period” during which a breach can be remedied before the right to termination may be ...<|separator|>
  54. [54]
    Term, Termination and Breach (Chapter 12) - Intellectual Property ...
    The cure period is often thirty days, though thoughtful drafters may establish different cure periods for different types of breaches.
  55. [55]
    The Legal Implications of Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive IP Licensing
    Non-exclusive licenses usually feature more flexible termination clauses, such as termination upon notice or non-use, given their shorter or indefinite ...
  56. [56]
    Term; Renewal; Early Termination; Perpetual License - LIBLICENSE
    Apr 25, 2012 · Some agreements permit either party to terminate the agreement for any reason, or no reason at all, provided adequate notice is given to the ...Missing: grounds | Show results with:grounds
  57. [57]
    11 U.S. Code § 365 - Executory contracts and unexpired leases
    This subsection does not limit the application of an ipso facto or bankruptcy clause to a new insolvency or receivership after the bankruptcy case is closed.
  58. [58]
    Survival Clauses & Contract Termination | Freeman Law - JDSupra
    Nov 27, 2024 · Survival clauses clarify which contractual commitments remain enforceable after termination, often used for confidentiality, IP, non-compete, ...
  59. [59]
    Key terms in IP contracts: consequences of termination - IP Draughts
    Dec 15, 2012 · For example, obligations to pay royalties and allow auditing of sales records should usually survive termination, but only in respect of sales ...
  60. [60]
    Intellectual Property & Licensing Dispute Resolution | AAA
    Ensuring your IP and licensing contracts contain clear and enforceable arbitration clauses is key to resolving disputes efficiently. The AAA provides tools ...
  61. [61]
    Three things to know about mediating licensing disputes - JAMS
    May 1, 2013 · Mediation is an opportunity to resolve an IP dispute by reaching a settlement that makes more business sense than a litigated outcome. Use your ...
  62. [62]
    Intellectual Property Blog - KMK Law
    Aug 17, 2017 · Delaware law is frequently a neutral jurisdiction whose law is selected to govern the interpretation of many agreements.
  63. [63]
    Intellectual Property Developments | United States International ...
    Section 337 investigations conducted by the US International Trade Commission most often involve claims regarding intellectual property rights.
  64. [64]
    ITC Litigation: Can You Be Sued at the ITC? - Fish & Richardson
    Jun 19, 2020 · Infringement at the ITC applies the same substantive law as that in district court.[3] However, unlike in district court where a plaintiff may ...
  65. [65]
    Innovative Technology Dispute Services | AAA
    Disputes involving software, hardware, and technology licensing agreements, including contract performance issues, licensing fees, and usage rights. Data ...
  66. [66]
    Expert Opinions on Reasonable Royalties Must Have a Basis for ...
    Feb 27, 2019 · Courts may carefully evaluate the opinions of damages experts before deciding whether to take them into account in determining a reasonable ...
  67. [67]
    eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. | 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
    May 15, 2006 · The court articulated a “general rule,” unique to patent disputes, “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have ...