1
POST-MEDIMMUNE LICENSING CLAUSES
Robert MacWright UVA Patent Foundation
Technology Transfer Tactics Audioconference
2
Terminate on Challenge
Licensor can terminate if licensee challenges
Case law has already enforced such clauses
Carefully define “challenges” – Legal or administrative proceedings that
Seek to have the patent declared invalid in whole or in part
Seek to reduce the scope of the claims
Seek to have the patent declared unenforceable
Seek a declaration of non-validity
3
Notice Before Challenge
Licensee must give advance notice before any challenge, and identify prior art Gives you the option of beginning
reexamination or reissue proceedings Stay of litigation is likely
Licensor may claim it violates spirit of Lear Won’t help as much if the issue is non-
infringement or inequitable conduct May provide an opportunity to re-negotiate
the license terms
4
Lear v. Adkins
Supreme Court: licensees are often the only ones with economic interest in eliminating bad patents, so it is in the public interest to allow them to challenge licensed patents
Requires that the licensee repudiate the license by not paying royalties and announcing intent to challenge
Licensor can terminate the license and add an infringement counterclaim
5
Jurisdiction and Venue
Licensee must sue in a particular courthouse Choice of forum provisions are routinely used
in licenses, and are routinely enforced Was a good idea even before Medimmune! You would always rather defend in a friendly
forum, or at least a neutral one If there is no reasonable connection between
the agreement or the parties and the forum chosen, it could get moved for forum non-conveniens – some judges hate patent cases!
6
Licensee Must Pay Costs
Clause requiring the licensee to pay licensor’s court costs and legal fees during any licensee challenge They are often required to for other
challenges, why not their own? Could be seen to conflict with Lear by
discouraging challenges by licensees Might be less risk if it only applied to
Medimmune challenges, but not Lear ones
Might be viewed as a “penalty” clause, which courts abhor
7
Must use Medimmune
Require that in any challenge, royalties will continue to be paid as in Medimmune, rather than repudiate and stop paying royalties as in Lear
Could be important in funding the defense! May run afoul of Lear, but:
They still get to challenge the patent Less severe than an agreement not to
challenge They can just terminate if they wish
8
Royalty Ramp-Up
Require the licensee to pay a higher royalty rate if they lose the challenge Similar Lear and penalty issues You might argue that the patent is
stronger after the challenge, and hence more valuable
In a Lear challenge, if the licensee fails to prove invalidity or non-infringement, then they have breached without cause, and liquidated damages might be reasonable
9
If They Lose, Royalty is Reduced Probably only works if it is a hybrid
license, with patent rights and know-how
A general drop-down provision when all the patents expire or are held invalid or unenforceable would likely pass judicial muster
If there are other patents in the license that cover the product, no reduction is needed
10
The BIG PROBLEM:
Getting a licensee to agree to any of these!
There is a good argument that if they won’t, you will need: Bigger up-front fees Bigger milestone fees Bigger minimum annual royalties
Because if you don’t you may not be able to fight a challenge, or get long-term value Big royalty income will inspire challenges
11
Have a Good Severability Clause These clauses haven’t been tested,
and could be held unenforceable You want to make sure that one bad
clause doesn’t void the contract Also make sure you consider the
interplay between these clauses and the rest of the agreement, whether enforceable or not, to avoid unforeseen consequences
12
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AFTER E-BAY
Robert MacWright UVA Patent Foundation
Technology Transfer Tactics Audioconference
13
e-Bay Revived the 4-Prong Test(1) irreparable injury
- BIG CHANGE is that this is not presumed!
(2) monetary damages are inadequate(3) balance of hardships favors patent
owner(4) the public interest would not be
disserved
14
Kennedy Concurring OpinionProvided Some Guidance
Irreparable harm depends on the economic function of the patent holder MercExchange was considered a “patent
Troll,” functioning only to make money, and using the threat of injunction to exact large fees
Also depends on the nature of the patent “weak” business method patents For minor features of products, money
damages may be enough
15
z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp .Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. (ED Texas, 2006)
Infringing technology was a small part of the product technology
Hardship on infringers would be great, as they would have to re-design products
Patent owners were not competitors, so would lose no good-will or market share
16
Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc . (E.D. Tex. 2006); Transocean v. GlobalSantafe Corp . (S.D. Tex. 2006); Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes , (W.D. Tenn, 2006)
Injunctions granted in all 3 cases All were direct competitors of the
infringers, which weighed heavily In Transocean, the core functionality of
the product depended on the infringed patent
17
What about Universities?
“…some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so.”
18
Universities Aren’t Trolls
A pharmaceutical invention is worthless without exclusivity, and the public suffers “wearing the white hat”
Loss of technology is loss of a research program, not just loss of income
A licensee may have a better argument for needing an injunction Having a “contingent licensee” lined up
may be just as good
19
You May Not Want an Injunction Courts have tended to award more than a
“reasonable royalty,” lest companies come to consider infringement to be a good alternative to negotiating licenses
If injunction is denied, the court essentially provides a compulsory non-exclusive license – and they may be willing to pay a substantial amount for exclusivity, knowing it won’t be a friendly negotiation
Odds are you will settle before it’s decided
20
Robert S. MacWright, Ph.D., Esq.University of Virginia Patent
(434)982-0378www.uvapf.org