Compulsory License, On What Grounds Sample Clauses

Compulsory License, On What Grounds. Is a compulsory license a way to free the use of the Myriad Genetics patent number EP0705903 for Xx. Xxxxxx? Compulsory licensing of patents is a well-established but highly controversial institution. It has been so at the international level ever since the first international patent conference in 1873 up to today’s WTO negotiations. It is true that compulsory licensing strikes at the very core of the patent right, in other words the sole right of the patentee to use his invention. Regarding the legal framework only, it is hard to understand why it is so disputed. On the one hand, national legislators have considerable freedom to shape their own patent laws and compulsory licensing regimes. On the other hand, existing rules on compulsory licensing of patents do not pose much of a threat to right holders; at least not the Swedish rules. The debate is more understandable if one considers the political dimension of the topic. There exists a clear north – south tension. Whereby the northern hemisphere is for compulsory licensing of patents when it is carried out in its own territory. But against it when it is enforced in the southern hemisphere, even when it is correctly done by international standards. Whereas the countries of the southern hemisphere want the same right of self-determination as the countries of the northern hemisphere. The August 2003 Decision marks a détente between the two positions since the northern countries, with the U.S. in the fore, forced intellectual property protection into the WTO agreement. How this truce will work in practice is yet to be seen. In the case at hand, a compulsory license must be applied for in Stockholm’s District Court, Stockholms Tingsrätt. The EPC does not contain any rules on compulsory licensing and once a European Patent is issued it shall be regarded as a national patent. The European rules of free movement of goods does not stand in the way of issuing a compulsory license. Myriad Genetics is not an enterprise with a European location. There are many potential patentees for a compulsory license. If an application is made by Xxxx. Xxxxxx for a compulsory license it is possible that it will attract other rent-seeking patentees also claiming the right to compensation. International conventions or Swedish patent law does not hinder a solution where the Court orders a common remuneration to all of the patentees to be divided among the right holders at their own expense. Xxxx. Xxxxxx and his colleagues do not nee...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Compulsory License, On What Grounds

  • LICENSE ONLY This Agreement creates a non-exclusive license only and the Licensee acknowledges that the Licensee does not and shall not claim any interest or estate of any kind or extent whatsoever in the Building, Communications Spaces, or Equipment Room by virtue of this Agreement or the Licensee’s use of the Building, Communications Spaces or Equipment Room. The relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee shall not be deemed to be a "landlord-tenant" relationship and the Licensee shall not be entitled to avail itself of any rights afforded to tenants at law.

  • License of Intellectual Property Each Party (a “Licensor”) grants the other Party (a “Licensee”) the non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up, worldwide, irrevocable, right, during the term of this Agreement, to use the Licensor’s Intellectual Property solely for the purposes of this Agreement and to carry out the Party’s functions consistent with its responsibilities and authority as set forth in the enable legislation and regulations. Such licenses shall not give the Licensee any ownership interest in or rights to the Intellectual Property of the Licensor. Each Licensee agrees to abide by all third-party license and confidentiality restrictions or obligations applicable to the Licensor’s Intellectual Property of which the Licensor has notified the Licensee in writing.

  • Commercial Driver’s License As a result of recent Federal statutory requirements, the State of Michigan enacted Act 346 of 1988. The parties agree that as a result of these statutory requirements some employees within the Technical Bargaining Unit may be required to obtain and retain a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) to continue to perform certain duties for the State. Whenever a CDL is referred to in this Section, it is understood to mean the CDL and any required endorsements. In order to implement this provision, the parties agree to the following:

  • Infringement and Defense of Licensee SAP shall defend Licensee against claims brought against Licensee in the Territory by any third party alleging that Licensee's Use of the Software, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, constitutes a direct infringement or misappropriation of such third party’s patent claim(s), copyright or trade secret rights, and SAP will pay damages finally awarded against Licensee (or the amount of any settlement SAP enters into) with respect to such claims. This obligation of SAP shall not apply if the alleged infringement or misappropriation results from (i) Use of the Software in conjunction with any other software; (ii) Use of the Software with an apparatus other than a Designated Unit; (iii) failure to promptly use an update provided by SAP if such infringement or misappropriation could have been avoided by use of the update; or (iv) any Use not permitted by this Agreement. This obligation of SAP also shall not apply if Licensee fails to timely notify SAP in writing of any such claim; however Licensee’s failure to provide or delay in providing such notice shall not relieve SAP of its obligations under this Section except to the extent SAP is prejudiced by Licensee’s failure to provide or delay in providing such notice. SAP is permitted to control fully the defense and any settlement of any such claim as long as such settlement shall not include a financial obligation on or admission of liability by Licensee. In the event Licensee declines SAP’s proffered defense, or otherwise fails to give full control of the defense to SAP’s designated counsel, then Licensee waives SAP’s obligations under this Section 8.1. Licensee shall reasonably cooperate in the defense of such claim and may appear, at its own expense, through counsel reasonably acceptable to SAP. SAP expressly reserves the right to cease such defense of any claim(s) in the event the Software is no longer alleged to infringe or misappropriate, or is held not to infringe or misappropriate, the third party’s rights. SAP may settle or mitigate damages from any claim or potential claim by substituting alternative substantially equivalent non-infringing programs and supporting documentation for the Software. Licensee shall not undertake any action in response to any infringement or misappropriation, or alleged infringement or misappropriation of the Software that is prejudicial to SAP’s rights.

  • License Type Your license to a Product will be under a Named User or CPU license type, as specified on an order. Each Named User license to a Product entitles a Named User to access and use that Product in one production environment and up to two non-production environments. Each CPU license to a Product entitles you to assign the Product to a single CPU in one production environment and up to two non-production environments, for use in support of an unspecified number of Named Users.

  • License Types The following License Types may be offered with respect to individual Software products or product families. Additional license types may be specified with respect to certain products or product groups as set forth in the Product Specific Terms. The License Type will be specified in an LSDA.

  • Unauthorised Use of Intellectual Property a) The Supplier/Service Provider agrees to notify Transnet in writing of any conflicting uses of, and applications of registrations of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks or any act of infringement, unfair competition or passing off involving the Intellectual Property of Transnet of which the Supplier/Service Provider acquires knowledge and Transnet shall have the right, as its own option, to proceed against any party infringing its Intellectual Property.

  • Infringement of Third Party Rights Each Party shall promptly notify the other in writing of any allegation by a Third Party that the activity of either of the Parties hereunder infringes or may infringe the intellectual property rights of such Third Party. Genentech shall have the first right but not the obligation to control any defense of any such claim involving alleged infringement of Third Party rights by Genentech’s activities under this Agreement at its own expense and by counsel of its own choice, and Curis shall have the right but not the obligation, at its own expense, to be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. If Genentech fails to proceed in a timely fashion with regard to such defense, Curis shall have the right but not the obligation to control any such defense of such claim at its own expense and by counsel of its own choice, and Genentech shall have the right but not the obligation, at its own expense, to be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. Curis shall have the first right but not the obligation to control any defense of any such claim involving alleged infringement of Third Party rights by Curis’ activities under this Agreement at its own expense and by counsel of its own choice, and Genentech shall have the right but not the obligation, at its own expense, to be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. If Curis fails to proceed in a timely fashion with regard to such defense, Genentech shall have the right but not the obligation to control any such defense of such claim at its own expense and by counsel of its own choice, and Curis shall have the right but not the obligation, at its own expense, to be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. Neither Party shall have the right to settle any infringement action under this Section 10.5 in a manner that diminishes the rights or interests of the other Party hereunder without the consent of such Party.

  • EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS A person who is not a party to this Agreement has no right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Xxx 0000 to enforce any term of this Agreement, but this does not affect any right or remedy of a third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.

  • Claims relating to Intellectual Property Rights 29.1. The Contractor must not infringe any Intellectual Property Rights of any third party in providing the Services or otherwise performing its obligations under the Framework Agreement and must ensure that the provision of the Services and the use or possession of the Deliverables does not infringe such Intellectual Property Rights.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.