Consider this scenario: A company sells intellectual property rights to a buyer that plans to develop the IP into a profitable product. The buyer pays a minimal upfront purchase price in cash, with the most valuable consideration taking the form of future “royalties” and/or “milestone payments” related to the development and sale of the product. Upon closing the buyer obtains ownership of the IP.

A Manhattan federal jury ruled in favor of luxury brand Hermès in its trademark infringement lawsuit against an individual that created non-fungible tokens ("NFTs") depicting images resembling the famous Hermès Birkin handbag.

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.

ANNUAL CASE REVIEW 2021 serlecourt RAISING THE BAR IN CHANCERY & COMMERCIAL “Stacked with highly experienced silks and juniors, Serle Court has long been one of the leading sets when it comes to civil fraud disputes” Legal 500 serlecourt 02 Welcome to Serle Court’s Annual Review of 2021. In the second year of the pandemic, barristers at Serle Court have continued to appear, often remotely, in courts at all levels around the world, in cases across our wide field of commercial chancery law.

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

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.

Determining whether a contract is executory and, thereby, subject to assumption or rejection under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, can be a difficult and fact intensive inquiry. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held, in an en banc decision, that continuing obligations under a trademark licensing agreement were insufficient to render the agreement executory. The unstated implication was that negative contractual obligations were “less material” than positive obligations in determining whether the parties had substantially performed under the contract.

The recent case of Husky Group Ltd  (“Husky”) underlines the importance of following your lawyer’s advice and not pursuing the defense of the indefensible.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and rejects the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. To cut to the chase, trademark licensees won.

The Supreme Court’s decision today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC resolved longstanding uncertainty at the intersection of trademark and bankruptcy law. In particular, the Court determined whether the rejection of a trademark license in a bankruptcy case deprives the trademark licensee of its rights under the license for which it had likely paid a lot of money.