Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A recent decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Sunbeam Prods. v. Chi. Am. Mfg., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012), has been viewed by many, including the authors of this article, as signaling a potential trend in favor of non-debtor licensees of intellectual property. This decision, described in more detail below, permits the non-debtor licensee to retain trademark rights under a rejected license agreement. Trademarks do not fall within the scope of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects certain intellectual property rights of a licensee when a licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the license. But just as intellectual property licensees may have begun to breathe easier, a reminder came from a Virginia bankruptcy court that their sigh of relief may be, after all, premature, because it may be that a bankruptcy sale free and clear of competing interests in the intellectual property pursuant to Section 363(f) may override all 365(n) and similar rights of non-debtor licensees of intellectual property.
Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code was promulgated by Congress as a direct response to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985). In Lubrizol, the court held that when a debtor rejects an intellectual property license, the non-debtor party retains no rights in the intellectual property, but rather it is merely entitled to a money damages remedy. In the aftermath of this controversial decision, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code by adding Section 365(n), which allows licensees to continue using the licensed intellectual property under certain circumstances after the debtor rejects the license. However, the amendment was not a perfect fix, as the Bankruptcy Code's definition of intellectual property (and thus the scope of those property rights protected by Section 365(n)) includes patents, copyrights and trade secrets, but does not include trademarks or franchise agreements.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.