미국판결__글8건

  1. 2023.09.07 특허라이선스, 기술이전 계약서에서 대가지급, Royalty 구성, 산정기준 등 판단기준, 미국판결 사항, 체크포인트, 계약조항 샘플 등 실무적 포인트 몇 가지
  2. 2023.04.14 블록버스터 바이오신약 PD-1/PD-L1 면역항암제 옵디보 Opdivo 특허발명의 공동발명 성립요건 corroboration 입증책임: 미국법원 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute vs Ono Pharmaceutical & BMS 사건 판결
  3. 2019.05.23 기술이전, 특허라이선스 계약에서 공정거래법, Anti-trust & Fair Competition Law 관련 실무적 개요
  4. 2019.05.23 미국 Qualcomm 퀄컴의 특허 라이선스 – 불공정거래행위로 판단한 미국법원 판결 뉴스 – 미국법원 FTC v. Qualcomm 사건 1심 판결
  5. 2019.05.22 미국연방대법원 2019. 5. 20. 선고 Mission Product vs Tempnology 판결 - 라이선스 계약서에서 계약해지 (termination) 사유 - 파산, bankruptcy 사유 발생 시 라이선스 계약의 종료 관련 라이센시의 권리 관계
  6. 2019.05.21 라이선스 계약서에서 계약해지 (termination) 사유 - 부도, 압류 등 파산, bankruptcy 관련 사유 발생 시 라이선스 계약의 법률관계 – 미국연방대법원 2019. 5. 20. 선고 Mission Product vs Tempnology 판결
  7. 2019.05.16 라이선스, 특허실시, 기술이전, License 계약에서 Running Royalty 산정기준 Net Sales 정의 영문계약 조항 샘플 – 상세하게 기재한 방식 사례
  8. 2019.05.16 특허라이선스, 기술이전 계약서에서 대가지급, Royalty 계약조항 샘플

 

 

Ø  Types of Royalties :

       Lump Sum, 분할불

ü 

Net Present value (현가율(WACC), 이자율 등 적용)

       Running Royalties

ü 

정율 (%)

ü 

정액 ($ per unit)

ü 

Sliding scale

Ø  Minimum Royalty vs Maximum Royalty

Ø  Gross Sales Price vs Net Sales Price

      

공제항목 (할인, 반품, tax, 수수료, 광고료, 설치비, 포장, 운송비)

Ø  Royalty Bearing Product

Ø  Tax

Ø  Report & Audit

 

KASAN_특허라이선스, 기술이전 계약서에서 대가지급, Royalty 구성, 산정기준 등 판단기준, 미국판결 사항, 체크포인트, 계약조항 샘플 등 실무적 포인트 몇 가지.pdf
다운로드

 

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2023. 9. 7. 08:51
:

 

 

실무적으로 공동발명자 판단은 매우 중요합니다. 공동발명자라고 주장하는 측에 그 주장을 구체적 증거로 입증할 책임이 있습니다. 미국법원은 그 입증책임을 corroborating evidence, 즉 구체적 증거로 상세하게 입증할 것을 요구합니다. 위 사건에서 공동발명 여부를 입증하는 방법과 정도를 어떻게 판단했는지 판결문 중 해당 부분을 인용합니다. 한번 읽어 보시기 바랍니다.

 

미국 특허법 공동발명자 규정 - 35 U.S.C. § 116(a) - Joint Inventorship

 

“When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.”

 

1심 판결문 – 58면 이하

 

An individual qualifies as a joint inventor only if he contributes to the conception of the claimed invention. Conception requires a ‘definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented.’ An idea is definite and permanent when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan.

 

Conception is complete when only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.

 

A conception is not complete if the subsequent course of experimentation, especially experimental failures, reveals uncertainty that so undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea that it is not yet a definite and permanent reflection of the complete invention as it will be used in practice.

 

There is no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.

 

In particular, a putative joint inventor “need not demonstrate that he made a contribution equal in importance to the contribution made by the listed inventors.” Instead, courts ask whether the contribution is “not insignificant in quality, when . . . measured against the dimension of the full invention.”

 

Inventorship is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, and a putative co-inventor need only show that he contributed to the conception of one claim.

 

A joint inventorship analysis proceeds in two steps. First, a court must construe the claims to determine the subject matter encompassed thereby.

 

Second, a court must compare the alleged contributions of each asserted co-inventor with the subject matter of the correctly construed claim to determine whether the correct inventors were named.

 

To meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, putative joint inventors must provide some corroborating evidence instead of relying solely on their own testimony. This requirement for corroboration addresses the concern that a party claiming inventorship might be tempted to describe his actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner in order to obtain a patent.

 

Courts use a “rule of reason” analysis to determine if a putative joint inventor has sufficiently corroborated his testimony.

 

This analysis requires considering all pertinent evidence to judge “the credibility of the inventor’s story.” There is no particular formula that an inventor must follow in providing corroboration of his testimony.

 

“Records made contemporaneously with the inventive process” are the most reliable corroborating evidence, but courts also consider “circumstantial evidence of an independent nature” and “oral testimony from someone other than the alleged inventor.”

 

Oral testimony of one putative joint inventor is not enough on its own to corroborate the oral testimony of another. Courts have generally been most skeptical of oral testimony that is supported only by testimonial evidence of other interested persons. But such testimony can help to corroborate along with other evidence.

 

The record includes agendas from all but one of the three scientists’ collaboration meetings, slides from the meetings, numerous emails and letters exchanged by the three scientists in 1999 and 2000, and published journal articles. These documents explain Dr. Freeman’s and Dr. Wood’s hypotheses, experimental results, and conclusions and are alone sufficient to constitute corroborating evidence.

 

In addition to the plethora of documents, Dana-Farber provided corroboration from a number of witnesses. Dr. Brown corroborated Dr. Freeman’s testimony about his antibody and IHC work. Dr. Carreno, a former GI scientist, confirmed that the trio met in May 2000 in Seattle. Dr. Collins at GI testified that Dr. Freeman reached out about finding 292’s receptor and that Dr. Wood discovered that 292 is a ligand for PD-1. 

 

Especially significantly, Dr. Honjo, who was present for the trial, confirmed most of the events to which Dr. Freeman and Dr. Wood testified. The “cohesive web of allegedly corroborative evidence” leaves no doubt that Dr. Freeman and Dr. Wood testified truthfully about the experiments they conducted, the communications they exchanged, and the substance of the meetings they attended.

 

KASAN_블록버스터 바이오신약 PD-1PD-L1 면역항암제 옵디보 Opdivo 특허발명의 공동발명 성립요건 corroboration 입증책임 미국법원 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute vs Ono Pharmaceutical & BMS 사건 판결.pdf
다운로드

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

작성일시 : 2023. 4. 14. 09:50
:

 

 

당연 위법 사항 - per se illegal

price fixing, output restraint, market division, group boycott, resale price maintenance

 

경쟁제한성과 합리성 판단 사항 - Rule of Reason 적용대상

Safeguards against the anticompetitive concerns 

horizontal restraints

tying arrangements (package licensing)

exclusive dealing (territory, field of use, components, alternatives, etc.)

cross-licensing and pooling arrangements

           . fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions

           . limiting to technically essential patents, not including alternatives

            . free to be licensed individually or in a package

            . worldwide non-exclusive

            . royalties on actual use of the patents

  . free to develop and use alternatives

           . grant back under non-exclusive, non-discriminatory licenses

  . no joint defense

grant-back

acquisition (exclusive licensing) of IPR

 

판단요소

1. Whether the restraint is likely to have anticompetitive effects?

2. Whether, under the relevant market context, the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve pro-competitive efficiencies that outweigh anticompetitive effects?

 

Qualcomm 퀄컴 특허라이선스 계약의 불공정사항 수정 명령 - 미국법원 FTC v. Qualcomm 사건 2019. 5. 21. 선고 1심 판결 내용

 

(1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.

 

(2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.

 

(3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.

 

(4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.

 

KASAN_기술이전, 특허라이선스 계약에서 공정거래법, Anti-trust & Fair Competition Law 관련 실무적 개요.pdf

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 23. 17:00
:

 

2017년 미 연방통신위원회(FTC)에서 퀄컴을 상대로 제기한 소송에서 2019. 5. 21. 퀄컴 패소 취지의 판결이 선고되었다는 뉴스입니다. 해당 판결문은 링크: 19-05-21 FTC v. Qualcomm Ju...에서 찾아볼 수 있습니다.

 

판결문에서 퀄컴의 특허 라이선스 및 판매 정책이 반도체 시장에서 경쟁을 저해하고, 휴대폰 제조업체와 경쟁회사뿐 아니라 소비자에게도 피해를 주었다고 판단하였습니다. 우리나라 기업들에게도 영향을 미칠 것으로 보입니다.

 

미국법원은 퀄컴에게 휴대폰 제조사들과 라이선스 계약을 전면 재협상해 가격과 판매 관행을 다음과 같이 변경할 것을 명령하고, 그 후 7년 동안 FTC로부터 그 이행여부 관련 모니터링을 받아야 한다는 의무까지 부과하였습니다.

 

FTC Act, and has ordered the following remedies:

(1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.

 

(2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.

 

(3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.

 

(4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.

 

(5) In order to ensure Qualcomm's compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.

 

KASAN_미국 Qualcomm 퀄컴의 특허 라이선스 – 불공정거래행위로 판단한 미국법원 판결 뉴스 – 미국법원 FTC v. Qualcomm 사건 1심 판결.pdf

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 23. 10:08
:

 

 

미국연방대법원 판결

-      Licensor 상표등록권자 Tempnology vs Licensee 상표사용권자 Mission Product

-      의류 분야 등록상표의 사용허락 라이선스 계약 기간 중 Licensor 상표등록권자 Tempnology 도산 상황 발생 미국법원에 소위 Chapter 11 파산신청 접수

-      미국 파산법에 따라 채무자(debtor)는 이행해야 할 계약상 채무의 이행을 거절하는 부인권(rejection) 행사할 수 있음

-      본 상표사용하락 라이선스 계약에서는 Licensor 상표권자가 채무자로 상대방 채권자, licensee에 대해 라이선스 계약상 채무이행을 거절하는 부인권 행사함.

-      라이센서의 채무는 대상 상표사용을 허여하는 내용이므로 위 부인권 행사로 licensee의 상표사용권한이 소멸되는지 쟁점

-      라이센서의 부인권 행사 후 라이센시가 상표사용을 계속하는 경우 상표권침해에 해당하는지 여부가 쟁점

-      미국연방대법원 라이센시 계속 상표사용권한 인정함

 

미국판결 요지 부정, 라이센시는 대상 상표를 계속 사용할 수 있음

 

 

KASAN_미국연방대법원 2019. 5. 20. 선고 Mission Product vs Tempnology 판결 - 라이선스 계약서에서 계약해지 (termination) 사유 - 파산, bankruptcy 사유 발생 시 라이선스 계약의 종료 관련 라이센시의 권리 .pdf

 

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 22. 08:39
:

계약실무 관행 및 실무적 쟁점

- 실무상 통상적으로 계약해지 Termination 사유로 당사자 부도, 압류, 파산 등을 규정함

- 그러나 국가마다 차이가 있지만 실제 파산 발생 시 termination 조항의 상대방의 계약 해제권 조항은 무효가 되어 아무런 의미가 없는 경우가 많다는 점을 유의해야 함

- 강행법규인 파산법에 따른 파산재산관리/분배규정에 따라, 계약이행상 상당한 변경이 발생할 수 있음

- 미국연방파산법에서는 원칙적으로 미이행계약에 대해서는 파산신청 즉시 automatic stay (자동정지) 발효

- 채무자의 계약상대방은 계약상 허여된 모든 권리 행사는 물론, (금전적 손해배상 청구 외에는) 채무자를 상대로 한 어떤 claim이나 소송도 금지

- 파산관재인은 스스로의 business judgment에 따라, 해당 계약을 거부할 수 있음은 물론(채무자는 계약이행의무가 면제됨), ‘Ipso facto’ 규정 [bankruptcy 발생 시 상대방의 계약 해제권 또는 특정 option 행사권(escrow상 금액/자료 등 인출권한) 발동조항 등]은 무효가 됨

- Licensorbankruptcy 경우에는 해당 license계약상 명시적인 non- assignment 규정이 있는 경우에도, 관재인은 해당 license 계약을 제3자에게 양도할 수 있는 반면,

- (특허 및 저작권법상 IP owner의 동의 없이는 licensee가 해당 license의 양도를 제3자에게 양도하는 것을 금하고 있는 것으로 해석되는 바) licenseebankruptcy에 처한 경우에는 licensor의 동의 없이는 해당 license를 제3자에게 양도, 승계할 수 없다.

- 프랑스, 독일에서는 파산관재인은 라이센스 계약을 미이행 계약으로서 해제할 수 있고, 이것에 대해서 특별한 Licensee 보호 제도는 마련되어 있지 않다.

- , 미국에서는 파산관재인은 미이행 계약인 특허, 저작권, 영업비밀 라이선스 계약(상표/서비스/상호는 제외)의 이행 또는 거절을 선택할 수 있지만,

- 파산관재인이 라이선스 계약의 거절을 선택했을 경우에는 licensee는 라이선스의 유지를 선택할 수 있고, 이 경우 기존 라이센스의 범위 내(, licensor의 특정이행 의무 등의 부수적인 의무는 제외)에서 보호된다.

 

계약실무상 대응방안

- 파산신청 전에 예견될 수 있는 일정 기준 이하의 재정부실, 이행 지연 등을 계약 해지사유로 규정

- 파산신청 전에 발생할 수 있는 Change of control 관련 사안을 해지사유로 규정 라이선스 계약을 미이행계약으로 해석되지 않는 구조로 설정

- : 로열티 지불의무 외에는 실질적인 미이행 의무가 존재치 않도록 규정하고, 다른 의무 (특허 유지/관리의무 등) 는 별도의 미이행계약으로 구성

- Source Code를 제3자 보관 또는 Escrow 위탁 의무가 발생하는 경우를 설정하고, 그 경우 보관/위탁된 source code가 관재인의 control 또는 파산재산 범위에 속하지 않도록 규정 해당 특허권에 대한 담보권 설정

 

미국판결 사안의 쟁점 및 판단 요지

- The question is whether the debtor-licensor’s rejection of that contract deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark. We hold it does not.

- 쟁점: 라이센서, 등록권자가 계약서 termination 조항의 사유 파산을 이유로 라이선스 계약을 종료하고 라이센시의 상표사용을 금지할 수 있는지 여부

- 미국대법원 판단요지 부정, 라이센시는 대상 상표를 계속 사용할 수 있음 \

- A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means all the rights that would ordinarily survive a contract breach, including those conveyed here, remain in place.

- 상표사용 허락 라이선스 거절은 계약위반에 해당함

 

첨부: 미국연방대법원 판결

 

KASAN_라이선스 계약서에서 계약해지 (termination) 사유 - 부도, 압류 등 파산, bankruptcy 관련 사유 발생 시 라이선스 계약의 법률관계 – 미국연방대법원 2019. 5. 20. 선고 Mission Product vs Tempnology 판.pdf

미국연방대법원 2019. 5. 20. 선고_Mission Product _vs_Tempnology_17-1657_판결.pdf

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 21. 11:40
:

 

 

Net Sales” means, with respect to a given period of time, gross sales of the Product in such period to unrelated Third Parties in bona fide arm’s length transactions, (excluding sales or dispositions for use in Clinical Studies or other scientific testing or reasonable quantities of samples, in each case for which Licensee and any such Third Party Distributors receive no revenue), less the following deductions which are actually incurred, allowed, paid, accrued or specifically allocated to such gross sales amounts of the Product and not separately invoiced:

 

(a) credits or allowances actually granted for damaged Product, returns or rejections of Product, price adjustments, and billing errors;

 

(b) governmental and other rebates (or equivalents thereof) granted to: managed health care organizations; pharmacy benefit managers (or equivalents thereof); federal, state/provincial, local and other governments, their agencies and purchasers and payors, including, without limitation, any state or federal Medicare, Medicaid or similar program); or trade customers;

 

(c) normal and customary trade, cash and quantity discounts, allowances and credits actually allowed and taken specifically with respect to sales of other dispositions of the Product;

 

(d) distribution services agreement fees allowed or paid to Third Party distributors;

 

(e) transportation costs, including without limitation insurance, for outbound freight related to delivery of the Product to the extent included in the gross amount invoiced;

 

(f) excise and sales taxes, tariffs, duties, value added taxes, and other taxes applied to the sale of the Product imposed upon and paid directly with respect to such sales or (reduced by any refunds of such taxes deducted in the calculation of Net Sales for prior periods and, for the avoidance of doubt, no deduction shall be permitted for income, withholding, corporate or similar taxes); and

 

(g) any other items that reduce gross sales amounts as required by GAAP.

 

Transfers and sales of the Product between or among a Party and its Affiliates or Third Party Distributors shall be excluded from the computation of Net Sales, but the subsequent final sales of the Product to Third Parties by such Affiliates or Third Parties shall be included in the computation of Net Sales.

 

There shall be no double counting in determining the foregoing deductions from gross amounts invoiced to calculate Net Sales. The deductions set forth above in this definition of Net Sales shall be determined in accordance with GAAP, as consistently applied by Licensee and such Third Party Distributors across all of their products. The amounts set forth in clauses (a) through (g) above shall only be deducted from gross invoiced sales where gross invoiced sales before deductions are non-discounted gross sales amounts.

 

In the event Licensee or such Third Party Distributors sell the Product together with other products to Third Parties in a particular country in the Territory and the price attributable to the Product is less than the average price of “arm’s length” sales of the Product alone in the particular country for the reporting period in which such sales occur (such sales to be excluded from the calculation of the average price of “arm’s length“ sales of the Product alone), Net Sales for any such sales shall be the average price of “arm’s length” sales by Licensee or Third Party Distributors, as applicable, of the Product alone and in the country during the reporting period in which such sales occur. If the average price of “arm’s length” sale of the Product cannot be determined in any given country, the Net Sales will be determined by the value of the Product sold to similar customers in countries with similar pricing and reimbursement structures and for similar quantities. Any dispute as to the determination of fair market value that cannot be resolved through discussion between the Parties shall be determined in accordance with Section 3.2(i). Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Product is sold as a Combination Product, for purposes of determining the royalties payable by Licensee to Licensor hereunder, Net Sales shall be calculated by the Net Sales for such Combination Product in a manner to be negotiated and agreed upon by Licensor and Licensee, reasonably and in good faith, prior to any sale of such Combination Product, which shall be based upon the respective fair market values of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in such Combination Product; provided that in no event shall the royalty rate payable by Licensee to Licensor for such Combination Product be greater than the royalty rate of the Product containing the Compound as the sole active ingredient.

 

KASAN_라이선스, 특허실시, 기술이전, License 계약에서 Running Royalty 산정기준 Net Sales 정의 영문계약 조항 샘플 – 상세하게 기재한 방식 사례.pdf

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 16. 17:00
:

 

 

4.1 License Fees. On or before the Effective Date, the Licensee Kite shall pay to the Licensor Cabaret a one-time upfront license fee of twenty-five thousand United States dollars (US$25,000). On or before each anniversary of the Effective Date until First Commercial Sale of the first Licensed Product, Kite shall pay to Cabaret an annual license fee of thirty thousand dollars (US$30,000).

 

4.3 Royalties.

4.3.1 Royalty Rate. During the applicable Royalty Term for a Licensed Product, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Kite shall pay to Cabaret royalties, with respect to each Licensed Product, equal to [*] percent ([*]%) of Net Sales of such Licensed Product by the Licensee Kite, its sublicensees and their respective Affiliates; provided, however, if the Licensed Product is made, used, or sold in such country where such Licensed Product would not infringe a Valid Claim, then the applicable royalty rate for such Licensed Product in such country shall be reduced to [*] percent ([*]%) of Net Sales of such Licensed Product. Only one royalty shall be owing for a Licensed Product regardless of how many Valid Claims cover such Licensed Product.

 

4.3.2 Third Party Royalties. If the Licensee Kite, its Affiliate or Sublicensee is required to pay royalties in consideration for a license to such Third Party IP to any Third Party in order to exercise its rights hereunder to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sale or import any Licensed Product, then Kite shall have the right to credit [*] percent ([*]%) of such Third Party IP royalty payments against the royalties owing to Cabaret under Section 4.3.1 with respect to sales of such Licensed Product in such country; provided, however, that Kite shall not reduce the amount of the royalties paid to Cabaret under Section 4.3.1 by reason of this Section 4.3.2, with respect to sales of such Licensed Product in such country, to less than [*] percent ([*]%) of Net Sales of such Licensed Product in such country.

 

4.3.3 Generic Product. On a country-by-country and Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product basis, if at any time during the applicable Royalty Term, one or more Generic Products are commercially launched by a Third Party (other than a Third Party sublicensee) in a country, then the applicable royalty rate for such Licensed Product in such country shall be reduced to [*] percent ([*]%) of Net Sales of such Licensed Product beginning from the launch of such Generic Product and continuing so long as such Generic Product is being sold in such country. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, to the extent that Kite has entered into a Sublicense Agreement pursuant to which Kite is not entitled to receive royalties in a country in which a Generic Product has been commercially launched, Kite shall have no obligation to pay, and Cabaret shall have no right to receive, royalties with respect to sales of Licensed Product in such country.

 

4.3.4 Combination Products. If a Licensed Product either (a) is sold together with another active ingredient product or device product which is not covered by a Valid Claim for a single price, or (b) consists of components that are covered by a Valid Claim and an active ingredient or device component that is not covered by a Valid Claim, then (except in the case where (i) the other active ingredient or device product or component which is not covered by Valid Claim also is not covered by any other valid patent claim, and (ii) a sublicensee pays to Kite a royalty which is not subject to an adjustment for such other active ingredient or device product or component) for purposes of the royalty payments under Section 4.3 for Net Sales of such Licensed Products, such Net Sales, prior to the royalty calculation set forth in Section 4.3, first shall be multiplied by the fraction A/(A+B), where A is [*], and B is [*]. If the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the Value of each of the products or components then a Third Party arbitrator who is an industry expert shall be appointed to provide such determination which shall be binding on the parties. The parties shall equally share all costs associated which such determination. Until such determination is made Kite shall make payment under Section 4.3 to Cabaret in accordance with its own determination and if following the Third Party arbitrator’s decision an increase in payments is required Kite shall make such adjustment payments retroactively.

 

KASAN_특허라이선스, 기술이전 계약서에서 대가지급, Royalty 계약조항 샘플.pdf

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2019. 5. 16. 16:44
: