최근 판례를 통해 살펴본 영문라이센싱 계약 Draft 주의점

 

지난주 금요일 라이센싱 계약서를 검토하는 계약법무팀이나 라이센싱계약팀이 눈여겨봐야 하는 판결이 미국 연방순회법원에서 나왔다.

 

종종 라이센시에게 Non-Assert Provision, a Damages Provision, Most Favored Licensee Provision은 중요한 key term이 된다.

 

그러나 draft의 시제를 놓치거나 문장이 장황해지거나 조항간 일관성결여로 모호해지게 되면 의도하는 효과가 발생하지 않게되므로 세심한 주의가 필요하다.

 

Wi-LAN과 Ericsson간의 특허소송에 관한 것이었다. 쟁점은 Wi-LAN가 4건의 Wi-LAN특허를 Ericsson에게 라이센싱하면서 체결한 라이센싱계약에 포함된 Non-Assert Provision, a Damages Provision, Most Favored Licensee Provision 이 세가지 조항에 대한 것으로 Wi-LAN가 라이센싱 계약체결이후 취득한 특허를 가지고 추가로 특허공격할 수 있는지에 대한 것이었다.

 

문제가 된 조항은 아래와 같다.

The Non-Assert Provision provided that Wi-LAN would not bring an action against “[Ericsson] PRODUCTS which would, but for this Agreement, infringe any WI-LAN PATENTS.”

 

The Damages Provision provided that “With respect to patents other than the WI-LAN PATENTS … WI-LAN hereby agrees that no damages shall accrue against [Ericsson] … for infringement of any patents that, on or after the EFFECTIVE DATE, are owned or controlled by WI-LAN where liability results from…[Ericsson’s] UMTS/HSPA PRODUCTS….”

 

The Most Favored Licensee Provision provided that “In the event Wi-LAN owns or controls the licensing of patents not already addressed under this Agreement and which are infringed or alleged to be infringed by UMTS/HSPA PRODUCTS, … WI-LAN will grant to [Ericsson] … a license at most-favored licensee status.”

 

이에 대한 1심 Texas법원과 Florida법원은 서로 의견을 달리했으나 결국 연방순회법원은 Wi-LAN의 손을 들어주었다.

 

이와 관련된 Christopher의 글을 발췌하고 관련 링크를 올린다.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Texas court and concluded that Wi-LAN was not precluded from asserting the four newly acquired patents in the Texas action and was neither obligated to license the patents asserted in the Texas action nor the patents asserted in the Florida action. In evaluating the obligations and intent of the parties under the Agreement, the Federal Circuit compared the language of the Non-Assert Provision to the language of the Damages Provision. The court noted that while the Non-Assert Provision only stated that Wi-LAN would not assert an action against Ericsson’s UMTS/HSPA products that infringe the WI-LAN PATENTS, the Damages Provision permitted Wi-LAN to seek damages for the sale of UMTS/HSPA products that infringed patentsother than the WI-LAN PATENTS.

 

Based on the language used in those provisions, the Federal Circuit inferred that the Non-Assert Provision was only intended to apply to the WI-LAN PATENTS and not any other Wi-LAN patents. As to the Most Favored Licensee Provision, the court concluded that this provision did not apply to the patents asserted in either of the Texas or Florida actions because the provision were drafted in the present tense and was directed to patents that “Wi-LAN owned or controlled as of the effective date of the [Agreement].” As a result, the Federal Circuit concluded this provision would not extend to after arising or future Wi-LAN patents.

Copyright © CHINSU LEE, but may partially include other’s copyright, This article is for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice.