No-Challenge Validity Clause in Patents License Agreements | ||
| مجله علمی "حقوق خصوصی" | ||
| Article 10, Volume 17, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 205-229 PDF (668.18 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Article | ||
| DOI: 10.22059/jolt.2020.296771.1006818 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohammad Javad Abdollahi1; Maryam Sharifi Renani* 2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Economics, Islamic Azad University, Khomeini Shahr Branch, Khomeini Shahr, Iran | ||
| 2M.A., Intellectual Property law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| According to the rules governing the legal system of intellectual property, every beneficiary has the right to challenge the validity of patents in competent authorities. Jurists, in response to the legitimacy of this right in license agreements, in addition to relying on the principle of contractual freedom, consider public interest and the rules of competition law. General Policy Reform Act of Principle 44 of the Constitution, while prohibiting the imposition of anti-competition clauses on the contract parties, assigns the determination of which to the Competition Council. The potential power of illegitimate incentives and the monopoly of licensors to create anxiety in American business seem so serious that judges express the deviation from the general rules and principles of the common law and Stoppel doctrine. Although formation of the Lear Doctrine in the American Legal System indicates the relative desirability of US judges' efforts to balance the general rules of contract at common law with public interest and anti-trust rules, it seems the most accurate way to determine the legitimacy of the clause is case study. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| License Agreement; No-Challenge Clause; Lear Doctrine; Stopple | ||
| References | ||
|
باقری، محمود؛ مرتضی اصغرنیا (1392). «انحصار و رقابت؛ تأملی بر لزوم نهادهای تنظیم‌کنندة مقررات»، اندیشه‌های حقوق خصوصی، س 1، ش 1، صص 30 ـ 60. حبیبا، سعید؛ محمدهادی میرشمسی (1388). «جایگاه حقوق رقابت در قراردادهای انتقال و اجارة بهره‌برداری از حقوق مالکیت صنعتی»، حقوق خصوصی، س 6، ش 14، صص 25 ـ 69. خشنودی، رضا (1393). «تعامل میان حقوق رقابت و حقوق مالکیت فکری یا تعارض با قواعد عمومی قراردادها»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، د 18، ش 3. رهبری، ابراهیم (1391). «تحلیل رقابتی تحدیدات ممنوع در قراردادهای لیسانس فناوری»، پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، س 1، ش 1، صص 65 ـ 104. رهبری، ابراهیم (1392). حقوق انتقال فناوری، تهران، سمت. غفاری فارسانی، بهنام (1398). حقوق رقابت و ضمانت اجراهای مدنی آن، تهران، میزان. قانون اصلاح موادی از قانون برنامة چهارم توسعة اقتصادی، اجتماعی، و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران و اجرای سیاست‌های کلی اصل 44 قانون اساسی»، مصوب 11/12/1389. قانون «ثبت اختراعات، طرح‌های صنعتی، و علائم تجاری»، مصوب 1386.کاتوزیان، ناصر (1397). قواعد عمومی قراردادها، تهران، گنج دانش، ج 5. نقی‌زاده، محمد؛ رضا امینی؛ سارا نوری (1396). «رویکردی زمینه‌محور به چالش‌های انتقال فناوری در قراردادهای بین‌المللی تجاری در ایران»، مدیریت نوآوری، س 6، ش 1، صص 1 ـ 19. نوروزی شمس، مشیت‌الله (1389). «تبانی واحدهای اقتصادی از دیدگاه حقوق رقابت اتحادیة اروپایی و ایران»، پژوهش‌های بازرگانی، ش 56، صص 87 ـ 117. References
Alan, D., Miller, Gal, M. S. (2015). “Licensee Patent Challenges”, Yale Journal on Regulation, 32(1), http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg. Alfred, C. & Singleton, S. P. (2011). “Licensee Patent Validity Challenges following MedImmune: Implications for Patent Licensing”, Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal, 3(2), https://repository.uchastings.edu. Andrew, D. K. & Debodhonyaa, S. (2014). “Licensee Estoppel: The Lear Doctrine”, Rates v. Speakeasy, and Other Applications, 1, pp. 1-10. Bagheri, M. & Asgharnia, M. (2013). “Monopoly and competition: consideration of the need for Regulatory agencies”, Quarterly Journal of Private Law, 1(1), pp, 30-60. (in Persian) Carlson, S. C. (1999). Note, Patent Pools and the Antitrust Dilemma, 16 YALE J. RE, 59, pp. 386-88. Chisum, D. S., Chisum (1984). MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 2008 Chroziel P. (1993). “licensing in unified Germany”, LES nouvells, 28(3), pp. 700-705. Dmitry, K. (2011). contracting for e return to the USPTO, inter partes reexaminations as the executive outlet for licensee challenges to patent validity, 51 (2). http://SSRN.com/abstract=1698446. Dreyfuss, R. C. & Pope L. S. (2009). characterize the case as a contract dispute, and bring the action in state (rather than federal) court, 1. 1000-1004. Dreyfuss, R. C., Lawrence, S. P., Dethroning, L. (2009). “Incentives to Innovate after MedImmune”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(2), https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj. Ghaffari Farsani, B. (2019). Competition Law and guarantee of its civil performances, Tehran: Mizan Publishing, (in Persian) Habiba, S. & Mirshamsi, M. (2009). “The relevance of competition law to industrial property agreements”, Journal of Private Law, 6(14), pp. 25-69. (in Persian) Jafarzadeh, M. & Rahbari, E. (2012). “Competitive Analysis of Hardcore Restrictions in Technology Licensing Contracts”, Private Law Research, 1(1), pp. 65-104. (in Persian) Janis, M. D. (2005). “Aggregation and Dissemination Issues in Patent Pools”, University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper, 05-14, 1-36, www.law.uiowa.edu/faculty/workingpapers.php. pp:1-36. Jay P. C. (2008). “Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation”, Michigan State University, U.S.A. and Yonsei University, Korea, pp. 1-44. Josef Drexel (2003). research handbook on intellectual property & competition law, Directed by: Max Planck Institute, Munich, Gremany. Kate, E. Kim (2011). “Is the no-challenge clause in your license agreement enforceable in the European Union?” European Union. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a54ff6e0-1373-4096-a3d5-910113bc7f5f. Katozian, N. (2015). General rules of contracts, Tehran, Ganj-e-Danesh Publishing, Vol. 5. (in Persian) Khoshnoodi, R. (2014). “Interaction between Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law; or Conflict with the General Rules of Contracts”, Comparative Law Researches, 18(3), pp. 53-76. (in Persian) Lichtman, D. & Lemley, M. A. (2007). “rethinking patent law’s presumption of validity”, 60(1), pp. 10-11, http://lawreview.stanford.edu. Lim, D., Patent, M., & Antitrust (2014). Rebirth or False Dawn?, John Marshall Law School, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 20(2), pp. 300-393, http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr. Michael, R. (2010). “patent challenge & royaltr inflation”, IndiAna Law Journal, 85(3), pp. 1003-1055. Naghizadeh, M., Amini, R., & Nouri, S. (2017). “Technology Transfer Challenges in Iran's International Commercial Contracts based on a thematic Approach”, Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), pp. 1-19. (in Persian) Noroozi Shams, M. (2010). “Collusion Between Undertakings in Perspective of EU and Iranian Competition Law”, Iranian Journal of Trade Studies, 14(56), pp. 87-117. (in Persian) Paul, J. & LaVanway, Jr. (2008). “Patent Licensing and Discretion: Reevaluating the Discretionary Prong of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction after Medimmune”, University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository, Minnesota Law Review, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr. Peukert, A. (2005). “contractual jurisdiction clauses & intellectual property, studies in industrial property”, Max Planck Institute for foreign & international patent, 24. Rahbari, E. (2013). Technology transfer Law, Tehran: SAMT Publishing. (in Persian) Rice, P. R. (1997). “The Evidence Project: Proposed Revisions to the Federal Rules of Evidence with Supporting Commentary”, F.R.D, 171, pp. 330-428. Sarnoff, J. D. & Bilcare, k. (2008). “presumptions of validity, preliminary relief, and obviousness in patent law”, (forthcoming in Spanish as translated by Carlos Correa in Jurisprudencia Argentina) , Cardozo arts & entertainment, 25(3), pp. 994–1052. Jay Pil Choi1(2007), Patent Pools and Cross-Licensin in the Shadow of Patent Litigation, Michigan State University, U.S.A. Manuscript received December 2007; revised September 2008 | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,085 PDF Download: 690 |
||