The Nine “No-Nos” of Patent Licensing: Are You Committing a No-No?


Check the List of Potential "No-Nos"

I’m going to spend a fair amount of time in upcoming posts talking about various competition issues raised by patent licensing.

To kick off this series, here is a list of nine “no-nos” developed by Bruce Wilson, a former deputy assistant attorney general, in the 1970s. The law has changed between then and now, and I’ll cover some of the changes in upcoming posts. But the list remains a pretty good starting point — at least as to issues that may raise a yellow, if not a red flag. So here it is:

1. Tying the purchase of unpatented materials as a condition of a patent license.

2. Requiring the licensee to assign back subsequent patents.

3. Restricting the right of the purchaser of the patented product in the resale of the product.

4. Restricting the licensee’s ability to deal in products outside the scope of the patent.

5. A licensor’s agreement not to grant further licenses.

6. Mandatory package licenses.

7. Royalty provisions not reasonably related to the licensee’s sales.

8. Restrictions on a licensee’s use of a product made by a patented process.

9. Minimum resale price provisions for the licensed products.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:


Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.