On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.

Companies in the health care industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Companies in the healthcare industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax, Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion addressing this in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).⁵ The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S.

On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).¹ The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S. patent licensees under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and that the failure of German insolvency law to protect patent licensees was “manifestly contrary” to United States public policy.