Sales and Distribution Arrangements – A sales or distribution arrangement limits a licensee’s
freedom to organize its distribution system independently of the licensor. There are three basic
approaches to the regulation of these agreements. One group of developing countries prohibits
any interference by the licensor in the licensee’s distribution system. A second group of
developing and developed countries prohibits only those provisions that give the licensor
exclusive distribution rights. Finally, a third group of generally developed countries only prohibit
those exclusive sales arrangements that tend to allocate or monopolize markets.
Price-Fixing – A price-fixing clause requires a licensee to sell products at a price specified by the
licensor. It may specify either maximum or minimum prices. It may be restricted to the
technology or goods being licensed, or it may cover other products as well. It may apply only to
the price charged by the licensee, or it may extend to the prices charged by retailers who purchase
the goods from a wholesaler-licensee. Price-fixing also arises in the context of cartels, particularly
cross-licensing and patent pools. Most developed and developing countries prohibit all forms of
price-fixing.
Noncompetition Clauses – Noncompetition clauses forbid a licensee from entering into
agreements to acquire or distribute technologies or products that compete with ones furnished or
designated by the licensor. In general, noncompetition clauses are prohibited in all countries.
Direct prohibitions may include an understanding that the licensee is not to manufacture or sell
competing technologies, or that the licensee is to terminate the use of particular technologies or
terminate the manufacture and distribution of particular products. Indirect prohibitions may
require the licensee not to cooperate with a competing business or not to pay higher royalties for
competing products.
Challenges to Validity – No-challenge clauses forbid a licensee from challenging the validity of
the statutory right granted by the licensor. The purpose of these clauses is to ensure that a licensee
will comply with the agreed-to restrictions and payment obligations. Only a few countries permit
no-challenge clauses generally. Most consider such a clause in a patent or copyright license to be
a restrictive trade practice. No-challenge clauses in trademark licenses are regarded in the same
negative way by developing and some developed countries. The United States, however, does not
regard a no-contest clause in a trademark license as violating either its trademark laws or its
anti-trust laws.
Tying Clauses – A tying clause is a provision that requires a licensee to acquire or use, separately
from the technology wanted, additional goods (such as raw materials, intermediate products,
machines, or additional technology) or designated personnel either from the licensor or from a
source named by the licensor. In other words, the acquisition of these additional goods or services
is a prerequisite to obtaining the technology license. In general, tying clauses are illegal in
virtually every country. Most countries, however, provide for exemptions in varying degrees.
Quantity and Field-of-Use Restrictions – Countries regulate licensing arrangements with
quantity and field-of-use restrictions in three ways.
Developing countries generally regard limitations on the quantity of goods that may or must
be produced, or limits on the fields in which goods may be used or sold, as illegal.
A second group of countries, including Japan, the European Community, the United States,
and most countries in the developed world, regard quantity and field-of-use restrictions as
implicit elements in the statutory rights of a licensor.
©2013 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall