LJN Newsletters

As the paradigm of corporate value continues to shift from tools and machinery to ideas and innovation, there is an increasing drive to identify new and innovative ways to monetize that value. With more than two-thirds of the S&P 500 market capitalization coming from intangible assets, traditional monetization methods such as the sale, licensing, donation, and enforcement of intellectual property rights are evolving as innovative intellectual property managers and investment professionals look for ways to leverage some of that value. One such approach is the securitization of the royalty streams associated with intellectual property assets.

For a variety of reasons, manufacturers owning patent rights may find it beneficial to assign their patents to a patent-holding company set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of the manufacturer. Using a holding company to manage a patent portfolio may permit the holding company to take advantage of favorable state tax treatment of licensing revenues. Through the use of a royalty-paying grant-back license to the manufacturer, placing patents in a holding company may help produce a tax deduction for the manufacturer. Administrative conveniences of having one corporate entity focus on maintaining and maximizing the return on patent rights may also justify transferring a manufacturer's patents to a holding company. Some also believe that having a holding company, rather than the manufacturer, enforce patent rights in litigation can make the litigation process easier on the manufacturer.

Franchise attorneys say that the new federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") will be beneficial to franchisors, but they do not predict that the new law means the end of class action litigation between franchisors and franchisees, nor by consumers or employees against franchise systems. In fact, some attorneys suggest that CAFA might result in more litigation, as plaintiffs file lawsuits in individual states rather than seeking national class action status through a case brought before a state court.

Courts in California have issued contradictory rulings in the past 2 months about whether a reform of the state's Unfair Competition Act, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (the "UCA") is retroactive. Section 17200 was changed when California voters passed Proposition 64 in the Nov. 2004 election. Proposition 64 amends the UCA to delete the broad standing rules and to add a requirement that suit may be brought by a private plaintiff (as opposed to a suit brought by a County Attorney or Attorney General) only if the plaintiff has suffered "injury in fact" and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. These reforms will likely reduce the incidence of Section 17200 litigation — a development that is strongly supported by businesses across the state.

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

The authors conclude their analysis of 10 highly significant decisions in the past decade that affected the franchising industry.

2005 ELA Legal Forum: May 15-17, 2005, Loews Miami Beach Hotel, Miami Beach, FL. Sponsor: Equipment Leasing Association of America, 1300 N. 17th Street,…