Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Unit 8 Technology Transfer Block Exemption Notes

LPC Law Notes > International Intellectual Property Notes

This is an extract of our Unit 8 Technology Transfer Block Exemption document, which we sell as part of our International Intellectual Property Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge And Oxilp And College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Intellectual Property Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

cl = clause LO = licensor LE = licensee EC = European commission Amend a patent licence so that it complies with an EU reg In the exam: wouldn't be asked to draft, but would be asked to explain what you would delete or redraft STEP 1- Does the agreement breach/infringe art 101 TFEU/s.2(1) CA 1998 Art 101 TFEU/s.2 CA 1998 Wording: o Agreement = Patent License o Between undertakings = two economically independent entities o May affect trade between MS = Between two different MS, cross border element o Has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition without the internal market = need to look at each proposal in turn to determine the degree to which it raises Art 101/s.2(1) concerns

For UK law s.2(1) applies, in particular, to agreements, decisions or practices which---s.2(2) (a)directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions; (b)limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment; (c)share markets or sources of supply; (d)apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby

Proposed patent licence Proposed (a) Art. 101 term infringement - potential effect on competition?

1. LO will Potentially yes - LO grant LE promise not to license exclusive to anyone else in the licence to territory this affects manufacture trade within the EU by changing their behaviour, it will also distort competition within the EU

2. LE only permitted to use the patents for laptop fans

3. No limit on the number of fans produced, but must pay 30%
royalty

4. Minimum price of EU8 per fan

BUT if exclusive territory was the only restriction, EC would be unlikely to challenge as encourages licensee to work harder Potentially yes restricts manufacturer in how he uses the article, could have other applications BUT they are only being granted rights that they wouldn't have had anyway, so any grant is increasing their commercial freedom No - paying a royalty is not per se anticompetitive

Yes, minimum price fixing (101(1)(a))?
object Stipulation as price,

(b) What does the TTBE have to say about these terms?

(c) Amendments to licence?

No restriction

n/a

No restriction

n/a

No restriction

n/a

Article 4(2)(a) - hardcore restriction - restricting the party's ability to determine its prices (4(1)(a) if the

Change "Net Sales Price" in cl 1.1 to "Recommended Sales Price" in order to avoid fixing the price

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Intellectual Property Notes.