Breach Of License Agreement
A license agreement usually covers many different aspects, including: A case with Quest Software is revealing. In quest Software, Inc. v DirecTV Operations, LLC, 2011 WL 4500922 (C.D. Cal. 2011), the District Court expressly stated that a clause providing for a “true up” mechanism in the event of excessive use, i.e., transfer, constituted an agreement and not a condition. In support of his decision to summarily dismiss the licensee and dismiss the copyright action, Guilford J. held that “the over-provision and the actual provisions of the license agreement allow [DirectTV] to use Foglight on additional processors for an additional fee. These provisions are correctly referred to as Covenants, as they do not concern the scope of the license, but only the number of processors that cover the license. In other words, the contract expressly provides that excessive use may occur and, in this situation, the solution is the payment of additional licenses. Normally, the author of a copyrighted work owns the copyright, but he or she may grant or assign the rights to another company or person. If the author uses his own work after the assignment of the copyright to a publishing house or other person, he can be prosecuted a posteriori for violation of the law.
In the event that the licensee`s conduct could be regarded at the same time as an infringement and an infringement of copyright, EU law does not lay down specific liability regimes. The Directive covers the protection of the rightholder in the context of contractual relations and as regards the relationship between the rightholder and third parties. It is therefore for the national legislature to take a decision on that matter. The Paris Court of First Instance examined French law. Article L122-6 of the Intellectual Property Act defined infringement as copyright infringement, but Article L122-6-1 of the same code dictated that general contract law was applicable. Consequently, the General Court dismissed the action and found that criminal liability in favour of contractual liability was not taken into account where the parties are bound by a valid agreement and the damage suffered by one is due to the other`s failure to comply with its obligations. Non-commercial works are often licensed for a flat fee, while commercial works usually account for a percentage of the licensee`s revenue for the sale of the factory concerned. Graco put forward three arguments in support of its application for a summary judgment. First, Graco argued that the complaint of breach of the agreement was the sole and exclusive remedy in the event of disagreement between the parties in order to pursue the agreement. Second, Graco argued that the agreement cleared them of all future claims by Rydex.
Finally, Graco argued that Rydex`s right to infringement was definitively time-barred, a doctrine that prohibits a new action in a problem that was or could have been tried in a previous appeal, after the previous one rendered a final judgment. Violation of a license agreement is sometimes, but not always, considered copyright infringement. If the licensee does not pay the royalties as agreed, the copyright owner may cancel the license agreement and claim damages. When the material is used after the licensee has been informed of the termination of the contract, this is a violation of the law. In response, Rydex argued that Graco had breached the agreement by its letter and by the subsequent non-payment of royalties. In the second place, Mr Rydex argued that the language of the agreement was also not contrary to future infringement actions, but only to actions which might have been brought before the agreement. As regards the specific case, the Advocate General proposed to treat the disagreement on the legal basis as a contract, given that the alleged infringement – the modification of the source code of the programme under the terms of the contract – is of a contractual nature. . . .