Concurrent Liability in Contract and Intellectual Property Law: Licensing Agreements in Light of Case C-666/18 IT Development SAS

Abstract

Abstract It is the starting point in some jurisdictions that if a licensing agreement has been breached, the licensor may choose to establish their claims against the licensee on the basis of either contract or intellectual property law. This article argues that such a starting point should not be upheld. Not least because of developments in EU law, the intellectual property rights (IPR) system contains special remedies and procedures, which systematically and unilaterally benefit one of the parties to a contract, viz. the rightholder (licensor). The ability to have recourse against a contractual party via IPR instead of contract law ought to be limited as far as possible, i.e. restricted to those instances where this is prescribed by law. In the recent judgment of the CJEU, C-666/18 IT Development SAS, the Court held that a copyright holder/licensor must be able to rely on the remedies and procedures of the Enforcement Directive (IPRED). Consequently, freedom of choice between contract and IPR law is guaranteed in this respect. It is notable that this judgment deals exclusively with IPRED and does not have any broader effect in relation to the basic question of choice between contract and IPR law outside of the scope of the IPRED. Therefore, freedom of choice could still be limited, and licensees shielded against the special remedies and procedures which are at rightholders’ disposal outside of the IPRED.***