Licensing Agreements Research Articles

China and the Modern World, Imperial China and the West, Part I, 1815‐1881

China and the Modern World, Imperial China and the West, one of several Gale Primary Sources databases, consists of two parts and this database is the first, covering 1815‐1881. The documents are drawn from the FO 17 and FO 605 series of British Foreign Office files held at the UK National Archives. The database contains correspondence relating to China from missionaries, interpreters, the factories of Canton (modern Guangzhou), interpreters, envoys, legations, consulates, and missions sent to China from Britain. Included are materials on war, diplomacy, international law, rebellions, trade, piracy, treaty ports, cross-cultural communication, and emigration. Also included are materials regarding the internal politics and relationship between China and Britain, as well as the relationships between other Western powers involved in East Asia. While this database is relatively easy to navigate, its search functions, though understandable, frequently do not provide results that are apparently relevant to the query submitted. Nevertheless, it provides an impressive collection of primary sources on the history of China in this time period, especially with regard to its relationship with Britain and the West. The database can be subscribed to or purchased. The starting purchase price ranges from $5,405 (with an annual hosting fee starting at $49) to $7,721 (with an annual hosting fee of $69). Libraries and other institutions may or may not find this pricing reasonable, depending on their budgets and need for materials on Chinese and British history in this time period. The licensing agreement for this database is too long and detailed, but has average provisions and presents little reason for concern.

Comparing the economic terms of biotechnology licenses from academic institutions with those between commercial firms.

Licenses of drug-related biotechnologies from academic institutions to commercial firms are intended to promote practical applications of public sector research and a return on government investments in biomedical science. This empirical study compares the economic terms of 239 biotechnology licenses from academic institutions to biotechnology companies with 916 comparable licenses between commercial firms. Academic licenses had lower effective royalty rates (median 3% versus 8%, p<0.001), deal size (median $0.9M versus $31.0M, p<0.001), and precommercial payments (median $1.1M versus $25.4M, p<0.001) than corporate licenses. Controlling for the clinical phase of the most advanced product included in the license reduced the median difference in effective royalty rate between academic and corporate licenses from 5% (95% CI 4.3-5.7) to 3% (95% C.I. 2.4-3.6) but did not change the difference in deal size or precommercial payments. Excluding licenses for co-commercialization did not change the effective royalty rate but reduced the median difference in deal size from $15.8M (95% CI 14.9-16.6) to $11.4M (95% CI 10.4-12.3) and precommercial payments from $9.0M (95% CI 8.0-10.0) to $7.6M (95% CI 6.8-8.4). Controlling for deal terms including exclusivity, equity, or R&D in multivariable regression had no substantive effect on the difference in economic terms. This analysis suggests the economic returns associated with biotechnology licenses from academic institutions are systematically lower than licenses between commercial firms and that this difference is only partially accounted for by differences in the intrinsic terms of the license agreements. These results are discussed in the context of a reasonable royalty rate, recognizing that factors extrinsic to the license agreement may reasonably impact the negotiated value of the license, as well as economic theories that view government as an early investor in innovation and technology licenses as a mechanism for achieving a return on investment.

Outlook on the right to repair: how will it find its way into China’s Copyright Law?

... The idea of a right to repair is intended to require manufacturers to provide consumers with parts, tools and relevant information for their products. This new right provides consumers with the opportunity and freedom to choose independent repairers on their own.1 In recent years, the movement of consumers fighting for the right to repair has been on the rise in both Europe and the USA.2 For example, there have been many legislative proposals on state levels in the USA,3 and the European Union (EU) Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) also makes it clear that ‘… the Commission will work towards establishing a new “right to repair” and consider new horizontal material rights for consumers for instance as regards availability of spare parts or access to repair’.4 In contrast, neither legislation nor judicial practice in China has ever been attracted to this issue, not even the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, which plays the key role among all laws and regulations enacted to protect consumers. The Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers only provides that manufacturers have an obligation to repair products but does not address the obligation of the manufacturer when consumers decide to repair products on their own.5 Furthermore, many Chinese consumers are unaware of what rights they may have to repair their products with any repair shop they choose, although it is an indisputable fact that, often times, maintenance of products is possible only through manufacturers or authorized repairers. Manufacturers, by taking advantages of copyright laws and licence agreements, maintain firm control over consumers’ maintenance needs and the repair industry. High maintenance costs, limited access to independent repairers and rampant e-waste have caused harm to consumers’ rights and interests, and at the same time, environmental pollution ensues. In the future, China will inevitably be confronted with the same situation as in Europe and the USA, or even worse, due to the size of the consumer population and the market.

Pursuing innovative solutions to sustainability problems through openness: A future research agenda

Pursuing innovative solutions to sustainability problems through openness: A future research agenda

The Future of Epidemic and Pandemic Vaccines to Serve Global Public Health Needs

This Review initiates a wide-ranging discussion over 2023 by selecting and exploring core themes to be investigated more deeply in papers submitted to the Vaccines Special Issue on the "Future of Epidemic and Pandemic Vaccines to Serve Global Public Health Needs". To tackle the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an acceleration of vaccine development across different technology platforms resulted in the emergency use authorization of multiple vaccines in less than a year. Despite this record speed, many limitations surfaced including unequal access to products and technologies, regulatory hurdles, restrictions on the flow of intellectual property needed to develop and manufacture vaccines, clinical trials challenges, development of vaccines that did not curtail or prevent transmission, unsustainable strategies for dealing with variants, and the distorted allocation of funding to favour dominant companies in affluent countries. Key to future epidemic and pandemic responses will be sustainable, global-public-health-driven vaccine development and manufacturing based on equitable access to platform technologies, decentralised and localised innovation, and multiple developers and manufacturers, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is talk of flexible, modular pandemic preparedness, of technology access pools based on non-exclusive global licensing agreements in exchange for fair compensation, of WHO-supported vaccine technology transfer hubs and spokes, and of the creation of vaccine prototypes ready for phase I/II trials, etc. However, all these concepts face extraordinary challenges shaped by current commercial incentives, the unwillingness of pharmaceutical companies and governments to share intellectual property and know-how, the precariousness of building capacity based solely on COVID-19 vaccines, the focus on large-scale manufacturing capacity rather than small-scale rapid-response innovation to stop outbreaks when and where they occur, and the inability of many resource-limited countries to afford next-generation vaccines for their national vaccine programmes. Once the current high subsidies are gone and interest has waned, sustaining vaccine innovation and manufacturing capability in interpandemic periods will require equitable access to vaccine innovation and manufacturing capabilities in all regions of the world based on many vaccines, not just "pandemic vaccines". Public and philanthropic investments will need to leverage enforceable commitments to share vaccines and critical technology so that countries everywhere can establish and scale up vaccine development and manufacturing capability. This will only happen if we question all prior assumptions and learn the lessons offered by the current pandemic. We invite submissions to the special issue, which we hope will help guide the world towards a global vaccine research, development, and manufacturing ecosystem that better balances and integrates scientific, clinical trial, regulatory, and commercial interests and puts global public health needs first.

Termination of Trade Mark Licence Agreement Based on Material Breach

N. v S LLC

Unilateral withdrawal from a license agreement

Keywords: license agreement, unilateral withdrawal from an agreement, copyright,intellectual property&#x0D; The right to the unilateral withdrawal of a license agreement is formulated in Part 2 of Article 1110 ofthe Civil Code of Ukraine in a generalized form, leaving outside the legal regulation anumber of important issues that are significant for the effective application of this provision.In particular, what should be the duration of the delay in the term of beginning theuse of the object of intellectual property rights, whether the licensor should provide thelicensee with an additional term to start using this object, what is the nature of the violationof the terms of the license agreement that allows for a unilateral withdrawal from it,in what form such a withdrawal should be made and from what moment it can be consideredcommitted. These aspects remain almost unexplored which determines the relevanceof their scientific and practical analysis. The purpose of the article is to provide acomprehensive characterization of the right to unilateral withdrawal from a licenseagreement and the mechanism for its implementation on the example of copyright, takinginto account the provisions of the legislation of the EU Member States.Unilateral withdrawal from the license agreement is an extrajudicial procedurewhich is carried out by written notice of the interested party to the other party. Unlikethe laws of many EU member states, the Ukrainian legislation does not specify the durationof the delay in the use of the work by the licensee and does not establish the obligationto grant the licensee an additional term to start using the work, and therefore theparties may regulate these aspects at their own discretion. The absence in the licenseagreement of date or period within which the licensee must start using the work givesthe licensee the right to independently determine the moment of the work’s use and deprivesthe licensor of the opportunity to withdraw from the license agreement on thisbasis. It is substantiated that breach of contract may relate exclusively to the obligationsof a party under a license agreement but not to its rights since the law does not providefor the compulsory exercise of the right to use a work.Based on the experience of the EU Member States, it will be useful for Ukraine to providein Part 2 of Article 1110 of the Civil Code that the general prerequisite for the rightto unilateral withdrawal is the proper and timely performance by the party committingthe withdrawal of its obligations which determine the possibility of performance of theagreement by the other party. This will contribute to the stability of contractual relationsin this area and will prevent potential abuses, in particular, the exercise of the right tounilateral withdrawal from the license agreement in order to harm the interests of theother party. Also, in Part 2 of Article 1110 of the Civil Code, it is advisable to establishthat a unilateral withdrawal from a license agreement shall be made in writing and shallbe deemed to be made from the moment a party receives notice of the other party’s withdrawalfrom the agreement unless a later term is specified in the agreement or notice.This will properly clarify the unilateral withdrawal procedure and facilitate its more effectiveapplication in practice.

Modeling the Automating Process of the Creation, Checking and Updating Texts of Contracts

Purpose of research. Is to increase the degree of automation of contractual relations legal support of the parties as in the case of publishing activities through the development of model-algorithmic control and software for the automated creation and updating of texts of publisher-author license agreements.Methods. When analyzing the processes of automating legal activities in relation to the creation, development and updating texts of contracts, Russian and foreign technologies and software that allow automating the processes of contractual activities have been considered. Conceptual and set-theoretics models of the process of automated building texts of contracts have been proposed.Results. An original classification of tasks and ways of automating the legal activities including a list of promising information technologies have been proposed. Conceptual and set-theoretics models of the process of automated building texts of contracts have been developed; they differ in the use of a set of public acts, information resources, and expert information available as sources of information to create the necessary document in the selected subject area based on the algorithm of data verification, generation, visualization, contract updating, which provide contract creation and updating in an automated mode. An algorithmic model for automated processing of contract parameters which differs in the distribution of tasks between experts (a lawyer, a programmer) and software tools at has been developed. The main stages of the document life cycle involve creating, updating, deleting a contract, which, based on the event model, checks for updates in public acts and automatically corrects the text values of the parameter of the contract. The proposed solutions have been tested in case of a license agreement between an author of the article and the publishing house issuing Informatics and Automation journal.Conclusion. The development of model-algorithmic control and software for processing text information available from public acts, information resources provided by representatives of subject areas necessary for the automated generation, verification, and visualization of individual acts contributes to an increase in the degree of automation, reduces the time of preparation of legal documents that meet the requirements of existing public acts. Means of automating contractual activities should be built on the principle of openness, be dynamic, and also be externally controlled. The software services of the St. Petersburg Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences for the automation of legal activities developed within the framework of this study are available at http://legaltech.viwo.ru/.

The WTO and the Covid‐19 “Vaccine Apartheid”: Big Pharma and the Minefield of Patents

&lt;p&gt;Unequal access to vaccines for the Covid-19 pandemic, also referred to as “vaccine apartheid,” has marginalized low-income countries again. In October 2020, India and South Africa proposed a temporary waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the prevention of Covid-19&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;at the World Trade Organization (WTO). An agreement was later reached in Geneva on June 17, 2022. The objective of this article is to analyze the negotiation and agreement reached at the WTO. This article explores the difficulties of creating international public good in the field of public health within the milieu of powerful actors, namely big pharmaceutical companies with vested interests. The central argument of this article is that this agreement alone will not solve the vaccine access problem for low-income countries. It is too restrictive, does not cover trade secrets and know-how, production capacity, availability of raw materials, and even adds new limitations that did not exist before. The best option to promote the production of quality vaccines in low-income countries is to share technology and know-how on a voluntary basis through production agreements. One way to facilitate the cooperation of large pharmaceutical corporation is to make it easier for low-income countries to use compulsory licenses. Simplifying the use of this mechanism could help encourage pharmaceutical companies to enter into voluntary licensing agreements.&lt;/p&gt;

Analysis of the main forms and types of commercialization of R&amp;D in developed countries

Object: Identification the main forms and types of commercialization of developments in developed countries in order to use them in the process of university technology transfer to the regional innovation system Methods: In the course of the study, methods of system analysis, comparative analysis, grouping method, content analysis, methodology of the Global Innovation Index rating were used. Findings: The article considers the main ways of commercialization in the developed countries of the world. It is shown that in many respects successful models of technology transfer have arisen as a result of the adoption at the state level of legislation that stimulates the process of commercialization. The systematization of approaches to the commercialization of the results of innovative scientific research in world practice has been carried out; practical recommendations have been given for managing this process. The article discusses the main schemes for the distribution of royalties from the implementation of intellectual property between an inventor and a scientific organization. The main forms of technology transfer used in developed countries are studied. Conclusions are drawn about the importance of the commercialization of innovations at various levels of the economy, the impact of state policy on the formation of a model for the commercialization of R&amp;D (research and development) results, and the interaction of universities with the business sector. Conclusions: The article identifies the main problems hindering the development of commercialization in Kazakhstan. The importance of technology transfer from universities to industry as a necessary condition for the development of an innovative economy is substantiated. The main characteristics of universities that conduct active scientific research are revealed. The main forms of technology transfer used in developed countries are identified, which include patenting, licensing agreements, fulfillment of orders for R&amp;D, creation of spin-off companies. The experience of organizational and legal support of commercialization in developed countries is systematized, which is of interest for the development of technology transfer in developing countries.

It’s Unfair! Non-price Exploitation in ICT Patents Licenses

This paper analyses controversial patent licensing conditions in the Information Communication Technology (ICT) sector as “unfair trading conditions” under Art. 102(a) TFEU. It argues that the application of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation does not prevent the assessment of patent licensing conditions under Art. 102 if the licensor is dominant in the market. Hence, the article examines four categories of controversial licensing conditions in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union under Art. 102(a): grant-back clauses, no-challenge clauses, portfolio-wide licenses, and contract term decoupled from patent validity. Developing old precedents in new application cases, the abuse-of-dominance analysis finds that each license clause is capable of anti-competitive exploitative effects, as much as offsetting justifications. As a result, the qualification of any such clause as “unfair” needs a case-by-case approach considering the overall content of the ICT patent licensing agreement. Whether the overall efficiencies outweigh the anti-competitive effects is always a question of degree. Nonetheless, this article contributes to legal predictability by identifying the opposing economic arguments of dominant patent licensors and complaining licensees. It concludes that both parties have strings to their bows.

No-challenge and pay-for-delay agreements in patent licence and settlement agreements under European competition law

... In a world that seems to grow increasingly litigious and complex, one can hardly deny the benefits of amicable settlements. At the very least, such settlements lessen the burden on infringement and validity courts. However, any kind of agreement relating to the validity and/or enforceability of a patent goes to the heart of the relationship between IP and competition law. In the European Union those agreements have to be reviewed carefully under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), to evaluate whether they are compatible with the internal market and do not in any way encumber research and development (R&D), by overextending the temporarily limited monopoly granted by a patent in exchange for the disclosure of an invention. Accordingly, any agreement limiting or prohibiting a party from challenging a patent or providing for a de facto extension of the 20-year monopoly right granted by a patent entails by nature a potential conflict with antitrust. Since patent and antitrust law coexist and both serve legitimate interests, the tension between them is intentional and finding the right balance serves the purpose of driving technological development and fostering technological progress.

Licensing early-versus late-stage technologies: The licensee perspective

Inward licensing of technology is an important route for firms to secure technological advances. With varying uncertainties and licensing opportunities along the innovation process, firms face challenges in deciding whether to license technologies during their early stages of development when they present opportunities as well as high uncertainty, or to wait until they have developed further towards commercialization, when they have lower technological uncertainty and are left with few opportunities. Building on studies of interfirm networks, we investigate how a firm's network structure and reputation affect such decisions. Our empirical analysis of licensing agreements in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries shows that firms tend to initiate licensing agreements during the early stage of technology development when their network structure is rich in structural holes. This tendency is higher when they are of good reputation. This research contributes to our understanding of how licensing agreements occur along the innovation process.

Medtronic: Is the US Court Ushering In the End of Transactional Methods?

By using an undetermined method in its transfer pricing analysis to determine royalty rates for licence agreements, the Tax Court's ruling in Medtronic III provides guidance for future related-party transactions.

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT AS A FORM OF INVESTMENT COOPERATION

According to the 1945 Constitution. The economic growth must promote equitable prosperity, high growth, and steady national stability. To achieve this goal, it is not easy, because the Indonesian people face many challenges. Ways that must be taken to extend financial development incorporate venture, utilize of innovation, increment information, move forward organizational and administration aptitudes. In this case, venture plays an imperative part. Joint Venture is a collaboration between foreign investors and foreign investors. In international business, joint ventures are used in various kinds of agreements, including joint production agreements (Corproduction Agreements), production sharing agreements (license agreements) and management contracts (Management Contracts).

Are Market Prices for Patent Licenses Observable?

Despite the pervasiveness of patent licensing in many industries, there is a dearth of publicly available information on licensing transactions. Notably, information on price—i.e., the royalty agreed upon by licensor and licensee—is purposefully kept secret. We assess to what extent “market prices” on patent licenses are observable by assembling all publicly available information on royalty amounts associated with the licensing of 4G and 5G standard essential patents (SEPs). Our data come from a range of sources including court verdicts and litigation settlements, arbitration awards, public announcements, and published licensing agreements. We show that even for a highly visible technology such as mobile broadband, the available price points are few and far between. Moreover, any comparison of the available data points, let alone their aggregation, is extremely challenging due to largely unobservable heterogeneity in the terms and scope of the underlying licensing agreements. Our results point to a lack of transparency in the market for patent licensing that might adversely affect market participants and competition more broadly.

Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights in the Era of Open Science

The evolving landscape of knowledge creation and dissemination, particularly through the lens of open science, prompts a critical reevaluation of our current intellectual property (IP) rights framework. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, the traditional paradigms of intellectual property management are increasingly at odds with the ethos of open innovation and the accelerating demand for accessible knowledge. This letter aims to explore the tensions between intellectual property rights and open science, drawing on recent scholarship to advocate for a more nuanced approach to IP in the era of open science. It is clear that the current IP framework requires a thoughtful reassessment to better accommodate the principles of open science. Such a reassessment could involve exploring flexible IP models that encourage innovation and knowledge sharing, such as licensing agreements that permit the use of intellectual property in ways that advance scientific research and public health objectives. Additionally, policies that support the creation of public knowledge commons could further the goals of open science by ensuring that scientific data and research outputs are accessible to all. In conclusion, the era of open science calls for a redefined approach to intellectual property rights—one that not only protects the interests of creators but also promotes the collective advancement of knowledge and innovation. By embracing the principles of openness, collaboration, and accessibility, we can forge a path towards a future where scientific research and innovation are driven by the shared goal of advancing human knowledge and well-being.

Specific features of legal regulation of relations under the licence agreement

Specific features of legal regulation of relations under the licence agreement

Specific Features of Legal Regulation of Relations under the Licence Agreement

Specific Features of Legal Regulation of Relations under the Licence Agreement

NIH Licensing Would Benefit from Free-Market Provisions.

Government encouragement of free markets is a highly effective means of fostering pharmaceutical innovation; the NIH, by including "free-market provisions" in its licensing agreements that discourage anti-competitive and research-impeding behavior, can do a great deal to support this goal even without legislative overhaul.