Category Archives: Licensing

Issues to consider when structuring medical device development and license agreements

Physicians often contract with medical device manufacturers to provide services relating to new technologies. For example, the doctor may help the manufacturer develop a new device, or the doctor may help test an existing device.  In the first situation, the physician may assign or license intellectual property to the manufacturer in exhange for payment.  In the second, the physician simply performs consulting services in exchange for a service fee.

In either situation, both parties should ensure that the arrangement complies with applicable laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Act.  My colleague John Jones recently wrote an article on steps that physicans and manufacturers can take to reduce risk in these situations.  As John writes:

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute proscribes . . . remuneration in exchange for a patient referral [in certain situations].  Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant criminal penalties, civil penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation, as well as imprisonment. The primary concern for physician relationships with medical device manufacturers under the Anti-Kickback Statute is whether the compensation paid to the physician constitutes disguised remuneration for referrals.

The article originally appeared in the February 25, 2011 issue of Physicians News Digest, and the full text is also available on the Pepper Hamilton website.

Football and IP

This weekend’s Super Bowl provides an opportunity to review some of the past year’s interesting developments relating to the National Football League and intellectual property:

1.  Titlecraft v. NFL:  wooden Lombardi trophy replicas infringe NFL copyright.

In Titlecraft Inc. v. National Football League (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2010) the NFL and NFL Properties sued Titlecraft, a manufacturer of custom wooden trophies.  Titlecraft made wooden replicas of the Vince Lombardi trophy.  The Lombardi trophy is a silver statue made by Tiffany & Co. that is awarded to each year’s Super Bowl champion; Titlecraft’s trophies were small wooden replicas that were sold to fantasy football leagues for honoring their own champions. 

Finding that (i) the NFL had a valid copyright registration for the Lombardi trophy; (ii) Titlecraft had access to the Lombardi trophy; and (iii) the two trophies were substantially similar, the court granted summary judgment for copyright infringement in favor of the NFL.  Although Titlecraft pointed to minor differences in size, angles, and texture, the court stated that “‘if it walks like a duck, quacks like a like and looks like a duck, it has got to be a duck’ – or in this case a copy.” 

2.  Who dat say dey gonna own dem trademarks?

When the New Orleans Saints reached the Super Bowl in 2010, the NFL sent cease-and-desist letters to several Louisiana merchants, demanding that they stop selling Continue reading

Issues to consider when deciding which affiliate will own a patent

Companies that have multiple affiliates may consider several options when deciding which corporate entity will own the organization’s patents.   Often, tax considerations and royalty structures are a driving factor in deciding whether an operating entity or a holding company will own the patents.

Before placing patent ownership in a holding company, patent holders should consider whether they are likely to enforce the patent against infringers.  If so, separation of the patent from the operating entity may limit the damages that patent holder can receive from the infringing entity.  The failure to document a license arrangement with affiliates also can limit damages.

This risk was highlighted in the recent case of Duhn Oil Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp. (E.D. Ca., Jan. 21, 2011).  In the case, Duhn Oil sued Cooper Cameron for patent infringement.  Although Duhn Oil was the patent holder, it had been acquired by Seaboard International, Inc.  After the acquisition, operations were transferred to Seaboard, and Duhn remained as a holding company for intellectual property and other assets.  Because Duhn was the patent holder but had no operations and no royalty-bearing license agreement, the court found that patent infringement caused Duhn no lost profits.

Faster Than the Speed of Law

In 1909, the Charles Dickens book Oliver Twist was first adapted to the silver screen as a silent film.  The film was distributed in 35 mm format, and it was most likely shown via Edison movie projectors in nickelodeons (movie theaters) around the country. 

The latest film version of Oliver Twist, released in 2005, had a few more distribution channels.  It premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, followed by a general release in theaters.  In 2006, it was released on DVD.  The DVD is available to rent from Netflix, Blockbuster, and other vendors.  The film has been broadcast on subscription-based television.  It can be viewed via the Internet on Amazon.com’s on-demand service.  Excerpts can be seen on YouTube.  The soundtrack is available on CD, as an MP3 download, or via streaming on services like Pandora.

Oh, and the original Oliver Twist novel is available as an audiobook; as an e-book in formats for the iPad, Kindle, Nook, and other e-readers; and also for free viewing on the web at various sites.

Do you think Charles Dickens’ attorneys thought of all of these possibilities when negotiating his book publishing contract?

In a recent article published in The Philadelphia Lawyer, my colleague Megan Kearney discusses how licensing law has often struggled to keep pace with ever-changing technologies.  More details and Megan’s full article are available here.

Exclusive licensee of patent’s co-owner is not an exclusive licensee of “all substantial rights” in the patent

A recent case from the Southern District of California highlighted the hurdles that patent licensees often need to overcome when enforcing a patent against third parties. 

In EBS Automotive v Illinois Tool Works (S.D. Cal. 1/4/11), plaintiff MOC Products Company asserted that defendant Illinois Tool Works (ITW) infringed a patent to which MOC held an exclusive license.  However, the patent was jointly owned by two parties, and MOC received its “exclusive” license from only one of those parties.   ITW moved to dismiss MOC’s patent infringement claim, arguing that Continue reading

Court ruling shows risk of “naked license”

When licensing your trademarks to others, it’s important to carefully draft the license agreement or you could end up giving away — or even losing — your trademark rights.  “Naked licensing” occurs when a trademark holder licenses its trademark to another party without exercising adequate quality control over the licensee.   When a licensor fails to exercise adequate quality control, a court may find that the trademark holder abandoned the trademark.  The practical effect of naked licensing may prevent the owner from asserting rights in the trademark in the future.

In FreeCycle Sunnyvale v. The FreeCycle Network (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2010), the court considered a license agreement in which a recycling organization – The FreeCycle Network (TFN) – coordinated a network of local groups that promote recycling by giving unwanted items away so that others can use them.   A local group in Sunnyvale, California formed FreeCycle Sunnyvale and received permission to use TFN’s trademarks via an email.  The email correspondence was sparse, and the only express restriction was that the Sunnyvale group could not use the marks for commercial purposes.  Two years later, TFN ordered the Sunnyvale group to stop using the mark, and litigation ensued.

The Court found that TFN’s license was a “naked license” because Continue reading

Avoiding Ambiguity in Patent License Agreements

Recent publications indicate that intangible assets account for between 70 percent and 80 percent of the overall value of United States companies.  For companies that are involved in intellectual property licensing, a significant portion of this value is derived from licensing revenues.  This would lead one to believe that the agreements in which licenses are granted are carefully drafted to ensure that the agreement clearly explains the rights and obligations of each party.

Unfortunately, too often companies start a license discussion with a form document that does not anticipate issues that the parties may encounter during the licensing relationship.  In addition, a slight ambiguity in the agreement can create headaches for both parties down the road.

In early November I will have the opportunity to speak about patent licensing at a CLE seminar.  When preparing my comments I recalled several situations that I’ve seen where just a few words in the agreement caused the parties to significantly disagree about the scope of the license, the payment obligations, or other key terms. 

For example, Continue reading

Licensing Executives Society Annual Meeting: Sept. 26-29

The following information is reproduced from a press release issued by the Licensing Executives Society:

WASHINGTON, August 25, 2010–Over one thousand of the world’s leading intellectual property (IP), licensing and business development professionals will gather for the Licensing Executives Society (USA & Canada), Inc., Annual Meeting at the Chicago Sheraton Hotel & Towers September 26-29. Themed “Deals, Deals and more Deals” the meeting will focus on the critical role IP plays in today’s most successful business strategies and will explore ways to leverage IP to maximize deal-making and profitability. Continue reading

Knopp Neurosciences deal shows how IP strategy can build value for licensing

In a deal spotlighting the value that can be created when a strong research team implements a strategic intellectual property protection plan, Pittsburgh-based Knopp Neurosciences, Inc. recently signed an agreement worth $80 million in which Knopp and Biogen, Inc. will develop and commercialize KNS-760704 (dexpramipexole) for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

My colleagues Ray Miller and Nicole Endejann of Pepper Hamilton LLP worked with Knopp to develop the intellectual property rights for the drug.  According to a press release announcing the deal: 

Miller and Endejann, along with other Pepper Hamilton colleagues, developed an exclusivity strategy for Knopp Neurosciences discoveries that included strategic patent protection, while also negotiating the layering of potential marketing exclusivities provided by regulatory authorities, such as orphan drug designation.

 For more details about the transaction, click here and here.

Which is more valuable: trade secrets or patents?

This month’s issue of the American Bar Association’s Landslide magazine includes a thought-provoking article about this topic.  In the article, R. Mark Halligan points out that patents have limited lifespans, are costly to enforce, and are subject to ever-shifting legal standards of patentability.  The article asks:  can trade secret protection be a better choice for many inventions? 

As with many questions, the answer is “it depends.”  When a client approaches me with an invention to patent, one of the first questions that I ask the client is “why patent this?”   The answer not only helps me draft a patent application that meets the client’s business objectives, it also helps me to ensure that the client does not file a patent application on an innovation that would be better held as a trade secret.  Because of this, it’s important that companies have processes in place to protect both patents and trade secrets as appropriate. 

Patents are valuable, but they require a trade-off in cost and disclosure.  The inventor must disclose intricate details of the invention in the patent application.  The process of getting a patent can be long and costly, especially where global protection is involved.  The prize at the end of the process is an asset which the patent-holder can then license, enforce, sell, or use as collateral to attract financing or investments.

Trade secrets, on the other hand, gain immediate protection.  Like patents, trade secrets can be licensed, and trade secret rights can be enforced.  When you protect a trade secret, you do not disclose your business processes, recipes, formulations, or other valuable information to the world. 

Although trade secret protection can be immediate and less costly than a patent, companies must not be lulled into a false sense that their secrets are secure.  A company must ensure that it has adequate legal protections (employee policies, contractor agreements, site visitor agreements, etc.) and physical safeguards (e.g., security systems, encryption) in place to keep secrets under wraps.  Trade secrets require ongoing care and protection, and companies who hold trade secrets must implement business processes and training programs to ensure that valuable information does not walk out the door. 

Last week I had the opportunity to participate in a monthly briefing of the Intangible Asset Finance Society that touched on this topic.  Roya Ghafele (formerly of WIPO and now with the University of Oxford), Mary Adams (of I-Capital Advisors) and I discussed perceptions of “IP” vs. “IPR”, and the difficulty that companies have in accounting for hidden value in IP / IP Rights.  For more information, the entire session is available as a podcast for purchase on the IAFS website.