In late December, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re: Mallinckrodt PLC affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court's November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of the company's Acthar gel.

The district court's affirmation serves as a reminder to holders of intellectual property that a debtor's fresh start under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code could trump royalty obligations that are found to be contingent claims arising as of the time of the transaction.

The Insolvency Practitioners Bill (‘the Bill’) is at its second reading in Parliament. The Bill is intended to partially transpose EU Directive 2019/1023 (‘the Directive’) on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt.

The Supreme Court of Israel recently clarified the distinction between fixed and floating charges under Israeli law. While the decision of the Supreme Court did not specifically address charges on intellectual property, the tests set forth by the Supreme Court will likely affect the characterization of charges on such intangible assets under Israeli law. This decision takes on additional importance in the current economic climate, which may see more IP-rich companies in insolvency situations or looking to use their intellectual property assets to secure financing.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) and the Outlook in India  

The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business. Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S.

引言

在投融资实践中，一方面，部分掌握核心技术/知识产权（“IP”）的产业投资人、科研院所等出资人（“IP出资人”）在投资时，希望通过IP出资减轻自身的现金出资负担并增强目标公司的核心竞争力，实现共赢。如果出资标的是IP出资人的核心IP，IP出资人往往希望以IP使用权而非IP所有权作为出资，以保护自身利益。另一方面，相较于常见的现金出资，目标公司对IP使用权出资的了解更少，也存在些许疑问。

实践中，IP使用权出资是IP出资人和目标公司/创始人经常向我们咨询的“老话题”。IP使用权出资需要考虑诸多问题和潜在风险，我们在此进行简单介绍，希望为IP出资人和目标公司/创始人提供一些指引。

第一部分 结论

Los juzgados de primera instancia conocerán, entre otras, de las acciones colectivas previstas en la legislación sobre condiciones generales de la contratación y en la legislación sobre defensa de consumidores y usuarios.

This week’s TGIF considers an interlocutory decision of Ball J in the NSW Supreme Court in Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 435, in which the Court dismissed an application to add an oppression claim where the company went into liquidation after commencing proceedings.

Key Takeaways

In certain sectors, in particular in technology and life sciences, it is common for companies to combine forces in order to maximise business opportunities. Only rarely can a single company undertake every aspect of (for example) invention, development and exploitation by itself. A company may decide to contract out such activities, or to collaborate with a third party with different skills or resources. Such a collaboration may take the form of a joint venture.

Federal Court of Justice, Judgment of 24 August 2021, Case No. X ZR 59/19 (BPatG) – Oscillating Drive

In the underlying case, the Federal Patent Court had dismissed the nullity actions of four separate plaintiffs against the German part of a European patent (judgment of 26 February 2019, case no. 3 Ni 29/17). All four plaintiffs appealed against this decision to the Federal Court of Justice.