Technology Transfer Agreements and their Importance

1993-01-01

TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERAGREEMENTSANDTHEIRIMPORTANCE

By
BobH.Sotiriadis*

LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

INTRODUCTION
Onewouldconcludefromalloftheadvicegivenontechnologytransfersin
thevariousworkshopsandpaneldiscussionsofmeetingssuchasthepresent
onethatthebasicdo’setdon’tsoftechnologytransfersareknowntothe
BiotechnologyIndustry.Furthermore,literaturecontainingprecedentsinthe
fieldoftechnologytransferabounds.
However,beingawareandunderstandingtheimportanceofprotecting
technologytransfersbycontractandhavingknowledgeoftheidealcontents
ofsuchcontractsdoesnotnecessarilyguaranteetheirconsistentuse.
WHYTECHNOLOGYTRANSFERAGREEMENTSAREOFTENOVERLOOKED
Itisfairtopresumethatthespiritofcollegialityamongstscientificresearchers
andtheprincipleofthefreemouvementandexchangeofideasinthefield
ofscientificresearch,runscontrarytotheelementofdistrustwhichseemsto
beinherentinthecontractualarrangementsproposedtotheseresearchers
bytheirlegaladvisersfromtimetotime.
Further,thereticencetoconsistentlyconcludesuchagreementsresidesinthe
difficultyofdelineatingtherightsthataretobetransferred.Thismaybesaid
tobethelegalprofession’s”needle-in-a-haystack”problemwhichexistedin
thebiologicalresearchfieldpriortothedevelopmentoftechniquesthat

LEGERROBICRICHARD,1993.
*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisapartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthe
patentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Thismaterialwasdesignedforthepurposeof
aconferencepronouncedon1993.04.12attheAssociationofBiotechnologyCompanies7th
InternationalBiotechnologyMeeting&Exhibition.Itwasmeantfordiscussionanddoesnot
conclusivelystatetheopinionoftheauthororthemembersofhisfirmonthesubjectmatter
nordoesitprovideanexhaustivereviewthereof.Publication117.

allowfortheidentificationandisolationofcompoundsfoundinminute
quantitiesinlivingorganisms.
Brieflyput,attemptingtodelineatetheactualtransferandfindingwhatthe
intentofthepartiesisinsuchcontracts,canbelaboriousenoughinitselfto
discouragerecoursetocertaincontractualarrangementsandpromptthe
partiestocarryouttheirinter-actionofaninformalbasis.
Itissuggestedthatitisnotsomuchtheeventualcontentofatechnology
transferagreementthatposesaprobleminthisfield.Whenproblemsdo
arise,itiswhenthepartiestoatransferdonotasamatterofcourseanda
matterofpracticeautomaticallyproceedtoawrittenexchangeonthe
variouselementsofthetransfer.Asweshallseelater,suchoversightscan
becomeverycostlyandjeopardizeyearsofhardworkandeven,ultimately
causesocietytolosethebenefitsofthepracticalapplicationofthe
technologyinvolvedoratleastslowdownsuchadvances.
THETRANS-NATIONALCONTEXT
Commonsensedictatesthatitshouldbeevenmoreevidentthattheparties
involvedinatechnologytransfersetoutthetermsofthetransferinwriting
whenitiscarriedoutinatrans-nationalcontext.Insuchcases,itisobvious
thattheimportanceofquestionsofalternativedisputeresolutionsystems,
legalforumfordisputes,andapplicablelawfordisputeresolution,become
magnified.
Furthermore,itisnotuncommoninthebiotechnologyfieldthatatransfer
whichcommencedbetweentwopartiesevolvestoincludemoreplayers.
Whenthetransferiscarriedoutoverseasandthesituationevolvesinthisway
itisimportantthateachplayerabidebythesamesetofrules.Insuch
situationsitisthereforeimportantthattheownerofthetechnologyretain
controloveritandensuredifferentpartiesarenotentitled,forexample,to
sueeachotherwithrespecttoanydisputeindifferentjurisdictions.
Priortocontinuingonthisquestionofcontrol,wewishtodiscusstheoft
forgottenmethodsbywhichtechnologymaybetransferred.Itisespecially
trueintrans-nationaltechnologytransfersthatthepartiesoughtnottorely
onlyontransfersbywayoflicense.
THEIMPORTANCEOFNON-LICENSINGTECHNOLOGYTRANSFERS
Furthermore,thepracticeofoverlyfocusingonpatentrightsandevaluating
onlythepatentrightsbeingtransferredshouldnotbeblindlyfollowed.

Licensingisbutonemannerinwhichentitiesmaycarryoutatransferof
technology.Confidentialinformationrelatingtoprocesses,know-how,and
tradesecretsallformpartofthepatrimonyofacompanyinthesameway
thatapatentedinventiondoes.Inthebiotechnologyfield,transfersareoften
madeatapointintimewhenpatentprotectionisnotevenavailablegiven
therudimentarystageoftheresearchinvolvedorthelackofapractical
applicationforit.Aslongasacompany’sinformationissecretandhasnot
beendivulgedandbecomepartofthepublicdomainitisanasset,albeit
intangible.Therearemanyinstanceswherenon-licensingtechnology
transfers,andtransfersoftechnology,thatisproperty,whichisnotpatented,
arethemoreappropriatevehicles.Theseagreementscantaketheformof
confidentialityagreements,know-howagreements,turn-keyagreementsand
evenjoint-ventureagreements,amongstothers.
Thesevarioustypesofarrangementsallowacompanythatisnotpresentin
thecountrywherethetechnologyhasbeentransferredtonevertheless
exercisegreatercontroloveritsproperty.Thismaybecontrastedwithcases
wheretechnologyissimplytransferredbylicensetowholly-ownedsubsidiaries
inforeigncountries.Subsidiariesaresubjecttopoliticalchangewhichmay
occurinthecountryinwhichtheyoperate.TheEuropeancommonmarketis
nodifferentinthattheregulationsoftheunioninmattersofcompetitionand
intellectualpropertyareinconstantflux.
Wewishtoconcludeonthispointbystatingthatinanytechnologytransfer
situation,especiallyinatrans-nationalsituationwithapartyresidinginEurope
orelsewhere,anddependingonthetechnologyinvolvedandthedegreeto
whichithasevolved,onemustalwaysconsidertheadvantagesof
contractualtechnologytransferoverthatofsimplelicensing.
EventheEEChasbeenknowntoprovidefortheliabilityofalicensorfor
damagescausedasaresultofdefectsintheproductunderlicense.These
contractsarenomorelimitedintheirscopethanstandardlicensing
agreements.Time-tableswithrespecttovariousdevelopmentstagesmaybe
stipulatedinsuchacontract.Thechoiceofforum,applicablelawandeven
alternativedisputeresolutionmethodsmaybeincludedincontractual
technologytransfers,whetherornotthepropertytransferredispatented.
ANOTEONDOINGBUSINESSWITHEUROPEANENTITIES
Inthepresentpaperweareofcourseconcernedmainlywithtrans-national
technologytransferswithaslightemphasisonEurope.Noonedoubtsthe
importanceoftheemergingEuropeanmarketintheintellectualproperty
field.ItissaidthattheEuropeanmarkethasapopulationofapproximately
700,000,000peopleandisresponsiblefor40%oftheworldgrossnational

product.ExpertsinthelicensingfieldestimatethattheNorthAmerican
licensingmarketisnolongergrowing.Thisisinstarkcontrastwiththesituation
inEurope.ItislikelythatNorthAmericancompanies,whetherinthe
biotechnologyfieldorotherwise,willdevelopaEuropeanlicensingstrategy
basedonthepremisethatEuropeisonemarketasopposedtoacollection
ofseveraldifferentmarketsestablishedonacountry-by-countryevaluation.
ItissuggestedthatEuropeansaremuchlesslitigationorientedthanwearein
NorthAmerica.Furthermore,inourexperience,wemaystatethatinthelegal
field,Europeanstendtobelessformalisticintheirbusinessdealingsthanus.
Thesetwoculturaldifferences(whicharenotnecessarilyflatteringwith
respecttoourNorthAmericanbusinessculture)arenonethelessimportant
considerationsinanytechnologytransfersituation.Onemustclearlyexplain
toaEuropeancounterparttheimportanceofdocumentingeveryelementof
eachtransferwhichoccursbetweenparties.Onemustexplainandmake
cleartotheEuropeancounterpartthereadinesswithwhichNorthAmerican
businesseswillresorttolegalproceedingsintheeventofadisputeandto
ensuretheyunderstandthatalternativedisputeresolutionremains,todate,
theexceptionratherthantheruleineverydaypracticeinNorthAmerica.
Apartfromtheseculturalconsiderations,itisalsoimportanttokeepinmind
whendealingwithasituationwherethetechnologyistransferredtoEurope
thatrecoursemustbemadetolocalcounseloratveryleastcounselfamiliar
withECregulationsandlocalintellectualpropertylaws.
Forexample,theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitieshas,inthepast,
promulgatedlengthyregulationswithrespecttotheapplicationofArticle
85(3)ofthetreatyestablishingtheEuropeaneconomiccommunity.Article
85(3)is,ofcourse,theanti-combinesprovisionofthetreaty.TheEChas
decidedtospecificallyregulateknow-howagreementsandbasicallythe
transferofknownpatentedtechnicalinformation,whethertheybepure
know-how,licensingagreementsormixed,know-howandpatentlicensing
agreements.
Furthermore,theEuropeancounterparttoaNorthAmericanEuropean
technologytransfermaybeanagentoftheECormaybeanentity
sponsoredbyoneoftheEC’ssub-commissions.Insuchcases,theCommission
oftheEuropeanCommunitiesmayforesee,initsregulations,specificcontrols
relatingtothetechnologywhichresultsfromthecommission’sfinancial
participationintheresearchofoneofitsagentsorevenaprivatecompany
whichitsponsorsandwhichcouldbethecompanywhichtheNorth
Americanpartyisdealingwith.Itis,therefore,alwaysadvisabletoverifythe
corporatemake-upofone’sco-contractantpartyandtoestablishwhetherit
hasbenefitedfromECfinancingorwhetheritisinfactanagentofthe
Commission.

Inlookingatallofthesecomplicatedissues,oneissometimesattemptedto
overlookaveryobviousquestionandthatisthebasiccomprehensionof
negotiations.ItissuggestedthatEuropeancompaniesdealinginaNorth
Americanmarketobtaincounselthatcanoffertheirservicesinthelanguage
understoodbytheprincipalsoftheEuropeancompany.NorthAmerican
companiesshouldalso,inanynegotiation,beassistedbypersonswhospeak
thelanguageoftheircounterpartsinordertoensureamaximumof
understandingbetweenthepartiesattheoutsetofnegotiationsandinthe
highlytechnicaldescriptionsofthetechnologybeingtransferred.
DELINEATINGTHEOBJECTOFTHETRANSFER
Whetheroneproceedscontractuallyorthroughalicensingagreement,and
whetherthetechnologyispatentedornot,itisalwaysvitalthattheparties
haveaclearunderstandingofwhatthetechnologyisthatisbeing
transferred.Biotechnologytransfersareparticularychallengingwhenit
comestodelineatingtheobjectofalicenseorcontractualtransfer.Again,it
shouldberememberedthatthetransferofpatentrightsshouldnotblind
partiestotechnologytransfersfromothertypesorarrangements,sincewhat
isoftenbeingprovidedtothereceiverofthetechnologyisa”headstart”in
themanufactureofnewproductsandatoolwhichallowsittopenetrate
newmarkets.
Onthesubjectofmarkets,itisimportanttorememberthatlargeEuropean
corporationsdonot,asissometimesthecaseinNorthAmerica,denigratethe
roleoflicenseeorreceiverofatransferoftechnology.Furthermore,once
thesecorporationsdodecidetomakeamoveinthetechnologytransfer
field,theyhaveusuallysettledpatentandregulatoryquestionsbefore
concludingatransfersuchthattheyarereadytoattackthemarketuponthe
conclusionofthecontract.
Intechnologytransferagreements,thelicensorshouldalwaysretainlitigation
rights.Furthermore,itisalwaysadvantageoustoensurelocalimputintothe
processespeciallyasitconcernstaxation,legalandaccountingquestions.
ABSOLUTENOVELTYREQUIREMENTS
Notwithstandingwhatwehavebeenassertingthusfar,itisevidentthat
patentrightsareacrucialelementoftechnologytransfers.Oneofthemost
importantnotionstokeepinmindwhentransferringtechnologyinthe
Europeancontextistheabsolutenoveltyrulegenerallyapplicablein
Europeanpatentlaw.ContrarytoCanadaandtheUnitedStates,an

inventioncannotunderanycircumstancesbedisclosedbeforethefilingdate
oftheapplication.Disclosurecanrangefromanythingfromadvertisingthe
productinawaythatrevealstheinvention,displayingaproductatatrade
show,oreventellingfriendsabouttheproduct.InCanadaandintheUnited
Statesthereisatwelve-monthgraceperiodforsuchdisclosures.Wewishto
addthateachcountryinEuropemayadoptexceptionstothisrulesuchasis
thecaseinFrancewheredivulgationatcertainspecificallydesignatedtrade
showswillnotautomaticallyresultinalossofpatentprotection.
Showingaproducttoapotentialinvestorwithaconfidentialityagreementis,
inprinciple,notconsideredtobeapublicdisclosure.Assuch,thetechnology
transferagreementorconfidentialityagreementisnotnormallyconsideredto
beapublicdisclosure.However,ifthepersontowhomthedisclosureis
madeinconfidenceviolatesthatagreement(andonecanneverfully
defendoneselffromsuchanoccurence)theinventioncanbesaidtohave
becomepublicallydisclosedandexcludedbytheabsolutenoveltyrule,
whereapplicable.
Prudencedictatesthatwhenonewishestotransfertechnologyatapointof
timewhenitconsistsofapatentableinvention,thatoneapplyforthepatent
intheeventEuropeconsistsofapotentialmarketforthefinalproduct.The
absolutenoveltyrequirementisstrictlyenforcedinEurope.Thedisclosure
neednotbeinanyparticularEuropeancountry:forittobecomeabarto
patentregistration,publicdisclosurecanoccurinCanada,forexample,and
operateasabartofilinginGermany.
CASESTUDY:WHATCANGOWRONG
Practicalexamplesofwhatcangowrongwhenthepartiestoatechnology
transferhaveneglectedtoproceedwithcontractualarrangementsorlicense
agreementsforbothpatentedandunpatentedtechnologymaybe
illustratedbyacaseofwhichIamparticularlyawareof.
TherearetwoDefendantsinthiscase,oneDefendantistheownerofa
patentforaninventionwhichrelatestomeansandmethodsforthediagnosis
oflymphadenopathyandacquiredimmunedeficencysyndrome(AIDS).This
patentcontainsclaimsforthepracticalapplicationoftheinvention.These
claimsdescribeanHIV-1diagnostickitforthedetectionofthepresenceor
absenceofanbodieswhichbindtoantigensofhumanretrovirusindicativeof
acquiredimmunedeficencysyndrome.
ThisDefendantisalsotheownerofapatentapplicationwhichrelatestoan
HIV-2detectionkit.

Theco-Defendantistheworld-widelicenseeofthepatentownerdomiciled
inanECcountry.Thepatentownerisdomiciledinthesamecountryandis
oneofthebiggestandmostimportantentitiesintheworldintheresearch
field.Itsworld-widelicenseecarriesoutthecommercialactivitiesrelatingto
thetechnologyofthepatentowner,notonlywithrespecttothepatentand
applicationinthepresentcasebutforallofthediscoveriesofthepatent
owner.
ThePlaintiffisalargeNorthAmericanpublicallytradedbiotechnology
company.
Plaintiffallegesthattechnologytransfersweremadeonaregularbasis
betweenitandtheworld-widelicenseeofthepatentowneroveraperiodof
approximatelyeighteenmonths.
Morespecifically,Plaintiffallegesthatithaddevelopedcertainsynthetic
peptideswhichallowittocreateanHIV-1andHIV-2detectionkits.Itsmain
claiminitsactionisthatitsownkitisthemostefficientonthemarketandthat
itsmarginoferrorissubstantiallylowerthanallothersuchkitsontheworld
market.
Tocommencewith,accordingtoPlaintiff,thepartiesexchangedwhatever
patentsorpatentapplicationstheyhadintherelevantfieldofHIVdetection.
Plaitiffclaimsinitsactionthatitwasconcernedthatsomeofthefruitofits
researchmaybe”caught”bytheinventionstaughtinDefendants’HIV-1
patentandperhapseventuallyinitsHIV-2patentapplication.Italsoclaims,
however,thattheco-Defendant,thelicensee,showedsomeinterestinthe
syntheticpeptidesusedbythePlaintiffinitsHIV-1andHIV-2detectionkits.
Brieflyput,Plaintiffclaimsthatatthetimeitcommenceddealingwiththeco-
Defendantithadperfectedcyclicalsyntheticpeptideswhichallowedfora
veryefficientdetentionofHIV-1andHIV-2.
AccordingtothePlaintiff,thelicenseeofthepatentholderwishedto
proceedtoacomparativestudyoftheimmuno-reactivityofthesynthetic
peptidescreatedbythePlaintiffandrequestedsamplesofthosepeptidesas
wellastechnicalinformationinordertoallowittoeffectuateitsanalysis.
Plaintiffallegesthatshortlythereafteritforwardedtothelicenseetwelve
coatedplatescontainingthepeptidesinordertoallowthemaster-licensee
tocarryoutitstests.AccordingtothePlaintiff,thecoatedplatesandtheir
contentswerenotavailabletoanyoneelseinthemarketplace.
Plaintiffalsocontendsthatthelicensee,approximatelyonemonthlater,
requestedfurthersamples,butthistime,offreepeptides.

Thisdemandwasallegedlyadheredto.Noneofthesetransferswere
coveredbyacontractualarrangementoralicense.Atthatpoint,itappears
thatallnegotiationswereverbal.Itisonlyafterthesetwotransferswere
carriedoutthatthepartiesdiscussedthepossibilityofafuturesub-license
betweenthePlaintiffandthelicensee.Evidently,thePlaintiffwasworried
thatitstechnology,althoughitmighthavebeenenhancing,infringedupon
Defendants’patentrightsandmayhaveconsistedofaninfringementofthe
patentapplicationfortheHIV-2detectionkit,eventuallytobegranted.
Afterthetwopreviouslymentionedtransfers,negotiationsallegedlyensued
withrespecttothequestionofapotentialsub-license,butnothingwasever
confirmedinwriting.Plaintiffallegesthatthelicenseedemonstratedinterest
inthepeptidestransferredandwasimpressedbytheirextremelyhigh
specificity.Aspecificpeptidewasidentifiedbythelicenseeasbeingthe
bestperformingand,accordingtothePlaintiff,thelicenseerequested
additionalmaterialsinordertocontinueitsanalysisoftheirpotential.Athird
transferwasmadeatthatpoint.Fiveorsixmonthslater,tenmorecoated
plateswereallegedlyforwardedtothelicenseecontainingnewsynthetic
cyclicalpeptides.Thesepeptidesareallegedtohavebeenevenbetter
performingthanallpreviousonestransferredbutagain,nocontractwas
signedbetweenthepartiesanditwasstillnotclearastowhetheralicense
wastointervenebetweenthepartiestotheseexchangesorwhatitsterms
wouldbe.
Severalmonthslater,accordingtoPlaintiff,thelicenseerequestedevenmore
freepeptidesandrequestedinformationontheircoatingprocedure.Plaintiff
allegesthatoneofitsemployeespersonallybroughtwithhimtoEuropethese
specificallyrequestedpeptidesalongwiththeprotocolforthecoating.
Obviouslythiswashighlyconfidentialinformationbutwasstillnotregulated
byacontractualarrangement.Initsaction,thePlaintiffstatesthatit
transferredthisconfidentialinformationbecauseitwasmadetobelievethat
itwouldreceiveasub-licenseforthepropertyownedbythepatentowner.
AnothertransferoftechnologywasmadesomeweeksafterthatEuropean
visit,whenthreediagnostickitsmanufacturedbythePlaintiffwereallegedly
remittedtothelicenseealongwithfurtherinformationconcerningtheresults
obtainedwiththesekits.Again,thePlaintiffallegesthatitcommunicatedthis
confidentialinformationduetothefactthatitwasmadetobelievethatit
wastoobtainasub-license.
Plaintiffallegesthatitevenaccededtotherequestofthelicenseetouse
Plaintiff’sownlaboratoriestocarryoutfurthertestsonthebasisthatitwasled
tobelievethatitwouldeventuallyreceiveasub-license.Obviously,Plaintiff

contendsthatagreatdealofconfidentialinformationwascommunicatedto
thelicenseeduringitsstudiesinPlaintiff’slaboratory.
WewithtopointoutthatPlaintiff’sdiagnostickitisamultiple-usediagnostickit
andisnotrestrictedtoHIV-1andHIV-2detection.Assuch,thePlaintiffdoes
notevenconfirmthatthepartiesagreedontheroyaltyratetobepaid
becauseofthedifficultyofattributingtheproportionalvalueoftheHIV-1
andHIV-2detectionpropertiesofthekit.
SeveralmonthsafterthevisittoPlaintiff’slaboratory,thePlaintiffforwardeda
technicalreporttothelicenseeallegedlycontainingtechnicalinformation
withrespecttoitsvariousdiagnostickits.
ShortlythereafterthepatentholderputthePlaintiffonnoticetocease
commercialisingHIV-1detectionkits,since,intheopinionofthepatent
owner,thesekitsinfringeduponitspatent.AccordingtoPlaintiff,thisletter
coincidedwithanoticefromthelicenseetotheeffectthatitdidnotwishto
grantthesub-licensesoughtbythePlaintiff.
Initsaction,Plaintiffclaimsthatthepatentowneroughttobeboundbythe
representationsofitslicensee.Itfurtherallegesthatitwasledtobelieveby
thelicenseethatifitfreelycommunicatedconfidentialinformationandthe
resultsofitsresearch,andthataninfringementproblemwasonthehorizon,it
wouldreceiveasub-licensewithrespecttoitstechnology.Plaintiffhas
requesteddeclaratoryrelieffromtheCourt.Morespecifically,Plaintiffhas
askedtheCourttodeclarethatasub-licenseexistsbetweenthelicensee
andthePlaintiffwithrespecttothepatentandthepatentapplicationofthe
patentholderastheyconcernHIV-1andHIV-2detectionkits.Furthermore,
PlaintiffrequeststhattheCourtrenderaDeclarationofnon-infringement
basedonthefactthatalicenseexists.Basically,thePlaintiffisrequestingthat
theCourtinvokeoneofseveraldoctrinesinpatentlawwhichmaybeusedto
exculpateanallegedinfringer.Theseincludethenotionoftacitlicense,and
consent.Subsidiarily,thePlaintiffisrequestingdamagesinexcessof15million
dollarsfrombothDefendantsascompensationfortheexpendituresitclaimsit
madeduringitsdealingswiththeDefendantsandthedamagesthatresulted
fromitshavingbeenallegedlyfalselyledtobelieveitwastoreceiveasub-
license.
LESSONSTOBELEARNED
Nomatterwhattheoutcomewillbe,thiscasedemonstratestheimportance
ofmanyoftheprinciplesthathavebeendiscussedandthatwillbefurther
reviewedduringthisworkshopandindeedintheotherworkshops,and
numerousconferencesthathavebeengivenonthissubject.

Weseeherethattheownerofthepatenthaslostcontrolinthesensethatits
licensee’sactsarebeingattributedtoitbythePlaintiff.Furthermore,foryour
information,thelicenseehasnotretainedthesamecounselasthepatent
owner.
Oneofthefirstpre-trialMotionsinstitutedinthiscaseputinissuethe
jurisdictionoftheCourt,asisusuallythecasewhenthedisputeconcerns
trans-nationalactivity.NeitherthePlaintiffnortheDefendantshadforeseen
thisproblembeforeenteringintothisfairlylong-termrelationship.Theaction
wasinstitutedovereightmonthsagoandadefencehasstillnotbeenfiled
becauseofthequestionofjurisdictionandanotherpre-trialMotion.
Furthermore,theapplicablelawisnotclearonthefaceoftherecord.
Itappearsthatthepartiesinthiscasehavenotproperlydelineatedthegoals
andfinalityofthetechnologytransfersthatoccurred.Theyarealsofaced
withasituationwhereeachsideownedpatentsandrightstopatent
applicationswhichwillperhapsbeinconflict.Thiswouldhavebeenanideal
situationwhereexpresscontractualarrangementscouldhavebeenusedto
protectbothsidesfromunforeseeablecontingenciesandtheambiguityof
litigation.Thebusinessobjectivesofthepartieswerenotclearandtherewas
noexpressagreementonwhoownswhat.ItappearsthatPlaintiff’spositionis
totheeffectthatitwasverballypromisedsomesortofsub-licenseandbased
onthatpromiseitforwardedwhatitnowdesignatesas”confidential”
information.ItisfairtopresumethatPlaintiffwillencounterseriousdifficulties
onthispointinthislitigation.
Thelicenseetoowillsufferfromnothavingclarifieditspositionandstating
clearlyinwritingwhetherornotitintendedtoeventuallygrantalicenseand
toproperlydelineatethenatureofthetransfer.Thepatentowneristheone
thatisprobablymostprejudicedbecauseitspatenthasbeenplacedinto
questionandaccordingtoPlaintiff’sclaim,ithadlittleornodealingswith
eitheroftheothertwoparties.Thepatentownerisalsomoreorlessobliged
togetallofitsinformationinthiscasesecond-hand.
Asmentionedabove,writtencontestationstotheactionhaveyettobefiled
bytheDefendantsandwillnotbeforsometime.Onecansafelyassumethat
eachpartytothisactionhasalreadypaidagreatdealinlegalfeesand
disbursementstodate,andtheyhavenotevenpastthepreliminaryMotions
stage.Thisismoneythatisnotbeingspentonscientificadvances,tothe
detriment,onecansay,ofsociety.
CONCLUSION

Wetrustthatourintroductoryremarksandtheforegoingexampleofa
litigationnighmarehaveimpresseduponyoutheimportanceofestablishing
asaquestionofpolicyandamatterofcoursethetransferoftechnology
througheitherthecontractualorlicensingvehicle,andthenoncethe
appropriatevehicleischosenseeingtotheinclusionoftheproperelements,
especiallywhendealinginatrans-nationalsituation.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD