Following the revision of the Civil Code, „liability for defects” was changed to „liability for lack of conformity”. A patent with a „defect” can be considered „treaty-compliant”. Therefore, if a „defect” is found, liability for the non-compliance is pursued in a contract. The decision in this case can also be considered as a guideline after the revision of the Civil Code. In 2005, Rydex sued Graco for patent infringement and the parties reached an agreement. Rydex granted Graco an exclusive license to use the patent against royalties in 5 percent of the net selling price of the products that use the patent. The agreement contained a provision that Rydex would have the first choice and the obligation to sue third parties. Kenall claimed that Cooper did not affix the required patents to its products, did not make a license payment, did not refit the single products, and resold the single products at the expiration of the license period, resulting in a violation of the license agreement and a remedy for patent infringements. Cooper, for his part, argued that the existence of a license prevented Kenall from asserting patent infringement and that Kenall`s sole remedy could be in accordance with contract law.
Both parties sought a judgment on the briefs in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Kenall sought judgment on all of his claims and Cooper only sought a judgment on Kenall`s claims. The distinction is important because the remedies for breach of contractual damages differ. For example, a copyright registered before the copyright infringement gives the owner the right to choose the legal damage over the actual harm and to recover attorneys` fees. A successful claimant in a trade secret or trademark case may recover exemplary damages in addition to the actual damages reimbursable in the event of an action for breach. Patent and trademark claims are due to three damages. The recovery of attorneys` fees is provided for in the Patent Act and the Lanham Act, but it is generally easier to recover in a successful infringement action. Therefore, these differences require careful consideration of claim claims in order to maximize recovery.
For the purposes of this article, we equate intellectual property infringement with license infringement. An Illinois district court has ruled that infringement of a patent license agreement does not automatically result in infringement claims. Whether the infringement results in infringement of a patent or claims depends rather on the presumed duration of a breach and the condition of the license or simply a contractual promise. The former may give rise to a patent application, while the latter may give rise to an infringement application. The Court rejected both „all or nothing” positions and found that the courts had to assess each infringement individually to determine whether the conditions allegedly violated are restrictions on the scope of the licence leading to patent infringement claims or contractual agreements that must be resolved by infringement actions. Under Illinois law, the court said that if the parties` intent is less than clear, the courts will interpret the terms as independent agreements. While it is not always clear from the outset whether the use of an additional license constitutes an infringement or infringement of intellectual property rights, the following contains some guidelines between the termination of a license and the beginning of the infringement: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circle upheld the rejection of a licensee`s application for a new proceeding and found that there was no error in awarding damages to the applicant/licensor for the licensee`s non-payment of royalties under a patent license agreement, although the District Court found that the licensor had also violated the agreement.
. . .