Common Contracts
2 similar Non-Exclusive Patent Sublicense Agreement contracts
Not a Template -Non-Exclusive Patent Sublicense Agreement • December 2nd, 2017
directly or indirectly, is controlled by, or is under common control with, or controls a Party; or(b) any Entity in which a Party or any Entity in which any individual or Entity recited in the preceding Subparagraph (a) directly or indirectly has at least a fifty percent[3] ownership or voting rights interest (whether through stock ownership, stock power, voting proxy, or otherwise), or has the maximum ownership interest it is permitted to have in the country where such Entity exists. 1.2 “Agreement” means this License Agreement, any appendix thereto, and any modification or amendment thereto that is made in the manner provided for herein. 1.3 “Covered Product” means a device[4] whose design, features, composition, manufacture, or use is claimed in the Patent Rights. 1.4 “Licensed Product” means the Covered Products described and depicted in Appendix B, including all methods of manufacturing thereof.[5][6] 1.5 “Losses” means demands, claims, actions or causes of action, assessments, lo
Not a Template - - For Educational Purposes Only -Non-Exclusive Patent Sublicense Agreement • November 3rd, 2017
This Agreement, having ____________ as its “Effective Date”, is among LICENSOR, whose address and principal place of business is _______________, and LICENSEE, a corporation whose address and principal place of business is _____________________________ [1] The scope of a sublicense is limited by the scope of the license (the Master License) held by Party granting the sublicense, that is, “you can only give rights you have.” This particular sublicense agreement arose from a desire by LICENSEE to sell an existing product from an international subsidiary in the US and Europe. The existing product was covered by various US and European patents that had been exclusively licensed to LICENSOR by the inventors, who did not want to deal directly in licensing negotiations. LICENSOR had already licensed the relevant patent rights to a third party on a non-exclusive basis, but was reluctant to enable development of other products for the US market. Due to that reluctance, many of the terms in
