Is the concept of "sole license" still used?

Started by Oh, Crud, 08-06-13 at 11:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Oh, Crud

Wondering if the concept of a "sole" license is still used, or if it is out of vogue due to some court-made law I haven't noted?

For example, "Licensor grants to Licensee a worldwide, sole (i.e., exclusive except as to Licensor), royalty-free license to XYZ...."?

Many thanks in advance,

O.C.

Disclaimer: Tiger Did Not Consume Plastic Wrap. This disclaimer does not cover accident, lightning, flood, tornado or angry wives.

I'm doing well as of 12-13-14, and regret only not getting that 1000th post. Hope all are doing well indeed! Thanks!

MYK

So, not an exclusive license (which would exclude the licensor too)?

Haven't run into that one before.  I can see that courts might frown upon it, though, as one party or the other might flounder over the definition, resulting in judges finally having haddock with one party or the other getting scrod as a result of confusion with the related flatfish.  The whole notion just seems fishy to me.

Ok, I'll shut up now.
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.



www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com