Posts Tagged: "contract"

One of the most egregious reasons that states make non-compete agreements (NCAs) unenforceable remains the broadness of the agreements that for all practical purposes bans an individual from pursuing her profession of choice. For example, enforceable NCAs cannot have language that calls for a separated employee to have to sit out her chosen industry for an excessive time, according to legal professionals. And NCAs must remain rational and have a rationale. “Most states will enforce restrictive covenants like NCAs so long as such agreements are reasonable in time, area and line of business,” says Micah J. Longo, employment lawyer, The Longo Firm, P.A.

In the past, employers typically only needed to be concerned that confidentiality and non-compete clauses in their employment agreements may be challenged either by departing employees who want to work for a competitor or by a competing company attempting to hire an employee or former employee. That tide is changing as an increasing level of government scrutiny has been directed at these employee restrictive covenants. Recently, federal and state agencies have been challenging the enforceability of confidentiality provisions and non-competes that the agencies claim are not supported by legitimate business interests. Given this change-in-tide and the New Year, now is the perfect time for employers to engage counsel to review their confidentiality and non-compete provisions.

Having an attorney draft a licensing agreement, or a licensing expert negotiate a licensing agreement, from start to finish is obviously the best way to proceed. But there will always be some who will choose to proceed on their own to negotiate a licensing and/or draft an agreement. This can certainly be dangerous, but sometimes there is no alternative given financial constraints. Whether you are going to represent yourself or work with an attorney or licensing professional, it is a worthwhile endeavor to engage in some strategic thinking, which absolutely must be the precursor to any memorialized deal.

As the world continues to grow and international trade on a multi-continent level has become the norm, protecting a company’s name is one of the most important things a company can do, regardless of their size or international standing. Due to what has become almost “organic” international growth for most companies, the use of trademarks owned by U.S. Companies within Europe has grown exponentially in the last 5 years. Consequently, the use of distribution licenses across Europe has also expanded massively.

I present ten scenarios for dealing with what is usually the most contested issue in pre-collaboration agreement negotiations – the ownership of foreground IP. These scenarios range from preferably avoiding joint IP ownership altogether to more complex situations involving joint IP ownership with both nonexclusive and exclusives licenses, as well as nonexclusive and exclusive cross-licenses, and even scenarios based on defining the parties’ respective fields of endeavor.

The popular media’s reports of the demise of IP rights (especially patents) are premature and greatly exaggerated. IP remains valuable to enterprises of all sizes and types. Further, the notion of open innovation, which reflects not only the social nature of man but today’s technological reality, is here to stay. As a result, IP law practitioners will continue to be called draft, review and negotiate collaboration-type agreements where business, engineering and other legal personnel will continue to insist on the “fairness” of joint IP ownership. Such insistence should always be met with skepticism for its need. And, when such joint IP ownership is unavoidable, its consequences and mechanics must be addressed. In sum: If you must do it, don’t half-a$$ it!

It seems the since-kindergarten, ingrained notion of sharing supersedes our B.S., M.S., J.D., Ph.D. and/or M.B.A. training in this respect! Pressures to “get the deal done” by our business and engineering clients, as well as the corporate lawyers who may be supporting the deal and always think it’s a good idea, result in IP law practitioners’ capitulation into drafting joint IP ownership clauses. We should have learned long ago, however, that while splitting the baby (i.e., joint IP ownership in this case) may sound “fair” and give us psychological comfort, in reality it is usually undesirable, unwieldy and perhaps unworkable.

Covenant Not to Challenge clauses are common in patent licenses, including licenses that are part of post-litigation settlements. clause is seen as a benefit bargained for under a license agreement and constitutes part of the consideration obtained by the licensor for the license. The intended effect of such a clause is to allow the licensor to make an estoppel argument in the event that licensee does challenge the patent, in spite of its agreement not to do so. However, the PTAB thus concluded that without an express grant from Congress, it did not have the authority to recognize contractual estoppel as a bar to an inter partes review.