Courts deliver previously looked to the description of license agreements to determine the scope of a licensees rights. In Eureka Co. et. Al, v. Henney Motor Co., 14 Fed. Supp. 764, for example, the complainant, a sub-licensee, appealed to the Court for an prohibition against the defendant, a licensee, for misstatement questioning their interests in the patent. The issue that the claim elevated before the Court was whether the plaintiff had the right to sell parts that embodied the patent to manufactures in their production of their own hearses. The Court held that in order to determine whether the plaintiff had that right, the Court would have to look to the language of the agreement. The Court reasoned that by feel at the interpretation of the let, they would be able to find expose the intentions of the parties and in that locationfore determine what the scope of the sub-licensees rights were when at the duration the agreement was created.
In the Eureka, 91 F.
2d 708, the Court looked into the terms of the contract and concluded that the language only gave the plaintiff the right to sell the patented hearses as a hearty and that they had no right to sell parts of the patented hearses apart from the whole product. The sub-license agreement gave the plaintiff the right to:
-Make the patented product in sub-licensees principle place of business, and to use and sell the products in the U.S. and throughout the world
-To keep accurate records and accounts of the shipment of the patented product
-Promote the exchange of the patented product with good faith/best efforts
consort to the Court, the language could be interpreted to prove that the parties intended for the plaintiff to sell the finished patented product only there is no mention of the sale of any or all...If you deprivation to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment