Licensing And Technology Transfer Agreements.
📌 I. Overview: Licensing & Technology Transfer Agreements
Licensing and technology transfer are fundamental in modern business and biotech, software, and industrial innovation. They allow a company (licensor) to grant rights to use, manufacture, or sell technology to another party (licensee), often in exchange for royalties, upfront payments, or equity.
Key Objectives of Licensing/TTAs:
Monetize IP assets – patents, trade secrets, software, know-how.
Expand markets – geographic, sectoral, or product expansion.
Share risk – reduce R&D costs by partnering with experienced licensees.
Foster collaboration – co-development of technology.
Types of Licenses:
Exclusive license – licensee is the only one with rights in a territory/field.
Non-exclusive license – licensor may grant the same rights to multiple parties.
Sublicense – licensee can grant rights to a third party.
Field-limited license – restricted by technology application or geography.
Typical Clauses in a Licensing Agreement:
Scope of license (rights granted)
Term and termination conditions
Royalty structure and payments
Confidentiality and know-how obligations
IP ownership and improvements
Dispute resolution and governing law
📌 II. Key Legal Issues in Licensing & TTAs
Enforceability of contract terms – including royalty obligations and field restrictions.
Ownership of improvements – who owns modifications to licensed technology.
Breach of contract – failure to pay royalties, misuse of technology, or exceeding scope.
Competition/antitrust risks – especially in exclusive licenses.
Cross-border compliance – IP laws and enforcement vary by jurisdiction.
📌 III. Landmark Case Laws
Here are six important cases illustrating licensing and technology transfer principles:
🔹 1. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc. (U.S., 2012–2015)
Issue: FRAND obligations in standard-essential patent licenses
Facts:
Motorola held patents essential to wireless standards.
Microsoft argued that Motorola demanded unreasonable royalties, violating FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.
Court Analysis:
Court emphasized that licensors of standard-essential patents must offer licenses on FRAND terms.
Key Takeaway:
Licensing agreements for standards-compliant technology must balance IP value with reasonable access.
Compliance frameworks should define royalty rates, calculation methods, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
🔹 2. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (U.S., 2007)
Issue: Breach of licensing agreement and field-of-use restrictions
Facts:
Genentech licensed hormone production technology to Novo Nordisk for specific therapeutic uses.
Novo Nordisk sold the products outside the licensed field.
Court Analysis:
Court enforced strict field-of-use limitations in the license.
Key Takeaway:
TTAs must clearly define permitted uses and territories, and enforceability depends on precise contract language.
🔹 3. Merck v. Integra LifeSciences (U.S., 2005)
Issue: Research exemption and scope of licensed research use
Facts:
Integra sued Merck for using patented peptides beyond research purposes.
Merck argued the safe harbor/research exemption applied.
Court Analysis:
Supreme Court held that use must be reasonably related to FDA preclinical studies to qualify for exemption.
Key Takeaway:
Licensing agreements should explicitly define research scope, including permissible experimental use, to avoid infringement disputes.
🔹 4. Biogen v. Schering AG (U.S., 2003)
Issue: Sublicensing rights and royalty obligations
Facts:
Biogen granted Schering a license with the right to sublicense.
Dispute arose over royalty payments from sublicensees.
Court Analysis:
Court emphasized express terms in sublicensing clauses; if royalties were owed, they must be clearly stated.
Key Takeaway:
Agreements must explicitly cover sublicense terms, revenue sharing, and reporting obligations.
🔹 5. BASF v. Syngenta (Germany, 2010)
Issue: Technology transfer and improvement ownership
Facts:
BASF licensed crop protection technology to Syngenta.
Syngenta made improvements and claimed ownership.
Court Analysis:
German courts held that improvements created using licensed technology belong to the licensor unless contract specifies otherwise.
Key Takeaway:
Agreements must define ownership of derivative inventions or improvements to prevent disputes.
🔹 6. Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Alza Corp. (U.S., 1990)
Issue: Royalty calculation and post-termination obligations
Facts:
Licensing agreement included royalties on sales.
Post-termination, Alza continued using the technology.
Court Analysis:
Court enforced post-termination royalty obligations when use continued beyond contract term.
Key Takeaway:
TTAs should specify duration, termination conditions, and post-termination use to avoid conflicts.
📌 IV. Technology Transfer Compliance Framework
For multinational firms, a structured licensing and TTA framework should include:
1. Due Diligence Before Licensing
IP ownership verification
Freedom-to-operate analysis
Evaluate regulatory compliance for transferred technology
2. Drafting Licensing/Transfer Agreements
Scope: field-of-use, territory, duration
Royalties: upfront, milestone, percentage of sales
Sublicensing rights and revenue sharing
Confidentiality and know-how transfer
3. Risk Management
Identify potential breach scenarios: unauthorized use, sublicensing disputes, improvements ownership
Include audit rights and reporting obligations
Anticipate competition/antitrust issues
4. Monitoring & Enforcement
Track licensee compliance
Royalty audits and reporting verification
Enforce contractual rights through negotiation, mediation, or litigation
5. Cross-Border Compliance
Ensure alignment with national IP laws, export controls, and regulatory approvals
Address dispute resolution and governing law in international contracts
📌 V. Lessons from Case Laws
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Microsoft v. Motorola | FRAND obligations in standard-essential patents |
| Genentech v. Novo Nordisk | Field-of-use restrictions enforceability |
| Merck v. Integra | Research exemptions must be clearly defined |
| Biogen v. Schering | Sublicense revenue sharing must be explicit |
| BASF v. Syngenta | Improvements ownership must be contractually specified |
| Ciba-Geigy v. Alza | Post-termination royalties enforceable if contracted |
📌 VI. Conclusion
A robust Licensing & Technology Transfer Framework combines:
Due diligence and IP audit
Precise contract drafting covering scope, royalties, sublicensing, and improvements
Risk management to anticipate and prevent disputes
Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms
Cross-border compliance strategies
By integrating lessons from landmark cases, companies can maximize IP value, minimize risk, and ensure compliance globally.
RELATED Blog
comments