Please read the disclaimer under www.ipag.at/projekt/download before using IPAG model contracts. The period of validity of exclusive licensing agreements, including the duration of the agreement and the ability of the licensor or licensee to terminate the agreement, is one of the most important considerations for avoiding anti-cartel damage. Short-term agreements represent a minimal risk to the compartmentalization of competition. See ZF Meritor, LLC vs. Eaton Corp. (3d Cir 2012) 696 F3d 254, 286 (citing Christofferson Dairy, Inc. vs. MMM Sales, Inc. (9th Cir 1988) 849 F2d 1168, 1173).

For example, the court of Barry Wright Corp. against ITT Grinnell Corp. (1st Cir 1983) found appropriate 724 F2d 227, 237, two-year contracts. See also Western Parcel Express vs. UPS of America, Inc. (ND Cal 1998) 65 F Supp 2d 1052, 1064 (for contracts from 30 days to 3 years as “relatively short term”). In the case of agreements of a longer duration, the simple termination of the agreement, for example. B the possibility of terminating comfortably with a limited period after an initial period, may nullify the effect of an exclusive agreement. See Omega Envt`l, Inc.

v Gilbarco, Inc. (9th Cir 1997) 127 F3d 1157, 1162. Examining the duration and resilience of an exclusive contract may also take into account the commercial requirements of a particular agreement, for example. B in order to cover high anticipated investment costs for the licensor, to justify the agreement as pro-competitive. Through this agreement, the copyright owner may grant other persons or companies the “license” to exploit the copyright in a monetary manner, for example.B. to reproduce or distribute the original works under the owner`s conditions through the creation of a reproduction, or the original works. The license may be very limited in scope, time or territory, for example only for the making of a translation (or film) and nothing else, limited to a period of two years and the right of sale may be limited to a given state or country. IPAG recommends the following model agreements, which can be used at different stages of technological research and commercialization. These agreements are available in English and German. These include dispute resolution clause options that relate to WIPO Mediation and WIPO`s arbitrariness of expeditity.

IPAG is a project of the “Universities of Austria”, funded by the National Contact Point for Intellectual Property (ncp.ip) at the Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, Family and Youth (BMWFJ), the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. Austrian universities and companies have jointly designed these framework agreements to enable an effective transfer of knowledge and technology. A music license agreement is a contract between the author of the music and a third party for the exchange of its composition for paid processing, the third party having the right to publish or broadcast the music in different forms. Google had the right to supply others, including Samsung and HTC, with products — including the Android operating system — that practiced Cascades` patents. As a result, Cascades could no longer assert patent rights in respect of these products. As in the case of Quanta, using the restriction in the Cascades/Google license agreement to limit, like those who then purchased Google`s Android operating system, would effectively allow Cascades to circumvent the doctrine of patent exhaustion and derive multiple profits from a single sale. These agreements are concluded between a company with an individual or organization for the conduct of research and development of an idea, goods or services. They are generally recorded with regard to the following measures: Although Philip Morris applied a number of provisions aimed at increasing its turnover vis-à-vis its competitors on the merits, there was no prejudice in view of the strong market competition that still existed after the agreements.

. . .