Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / crowd sourcing; clauses in IP agreements / Neil Wilkof / Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements

Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements

- ,

Alexander Tsoutsanis of DLA Piper has sent the following urgent request directed to Kat readers.

“Words will be words, but sometimes words end up in litigation, quite often in connection with interpreting agreements. Recent cases in the Netherlands have dealt with nitty-gritty questions such as whether a clause imposing a penalty sum 'per product' is to be calculated 'per item' or 'per category'. Another case came to grips with the issue of what a 'reserved sector' in a patent license actually means.

In connection with a teaching project for patent attorneys, Alexander Tsoutsanis is now crowd- sourcing vague and ambiguous clauses in IP agreements, both of the contentious (i.e. cease-and-desist declarations and settlement agreements) and non-contentious (joint-ventures, licenses and the like) kinds.

All clauses will be anonymized, no reference to any contracting parties will be made and are solely to be used for teaching purposes. If such clause has been mentioned in a published judgment, a case reference would also be appreciated. Please submit any clauses immediately (before 28 October, if possible) to alexander.tsoutsanis@dlapiper.com.”
Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements Reviewed by Neil Wilkof on Thursday, October 27, 2016 Rating: 5

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousThursday, 27 October 2016 at 21:46:00 GMT+1

    I have more of a problem with abusively worded Non Disclosure Agreements, which you can't really discuss intelligently when you are the supplicant...

    ReplyDelete
  2. BackDraftFriday, 28 October 2016 at 08:02:00 GMT+1

    Poorly drafted contracts in omitting key definitions non-shocker. What do you expect when non-specialists simply pull down a bunch of precedents and simply fiddle around with the "important-looking" clauses?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark FoxFriday, 28 October 2016 at 13:48:00 GMT+1

    GNU GPL v.2 - need I say anything more?

    ReplyDelete
  4. TJFriday, 28 October 2016 at 17:09:00 GMT+1

    Legal documents that refer to themselves (as many do) can easily lead to logical paradoxes, in a Godel-esque sort of way. For example, an NDA will often exclude from its scope of protection information that is already in the public domain, or that becomes public "other than as a result of a violation of this agreement". However, if the receiving party does put some received information in the public domain, all it then has to do is assert that there was no violation because the information it published was excluded from the scope of the agreement by this clause, and this assertion is logically true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMonday, 31 October 2016 at 09:23:00 GMT

    Speaking of self referential legalese, I have always been amused at the statute defining infringement of a process claim, s60(1)(b)):

    60.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a
    person infringes a patent for an invention if, but
    only if, while the patent is in force, he does any of
    the following things in the United Kingdom in
    relation to the invention without the consent of the
    proprietor of the patent, that is to say -
    (a) ...
    (b) where the invention is a process, he
    uses the process or he offers it for use in
    the United Kingdom when he knows, or it
    is obvious to a reasonable person in the
    circumstances, that its use there without
    the consent of the proprietor would be an
    infringement of the patent    ;

    So it is an infringement is it is an infringement, mkay.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.