California Intellectual Property Licensing San Diego
Intellectual Property Licensing San Diego Summary
Ownership of intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks provides many rights, including the right to contractually license the intellectual property. The benefits of licensing intellectual property include:
Converting intellectual property rights into sources of revenue;
Settling litigation involving intellectual property rights;
Growing and diversifying products by allowing others to utilize your rights; and
Unblocking interlocking intellectual property rights.
California Intellectual Property Licensing San Diego Details
Patent owners have the right to prevent the copying of their patented inventions by others but may license those inventions subject to their patents freely. When a patent is contractually licensed by its owner, the owner is allowing another person or business to make, use, or sell products or services otherwise subject to the specific restrictions granted by patents. While historically patent licensing was not permitted, today most patent owners actively seek to license their patented inventions in conjunction with or instead of taking advantage of the exclusive rights individually.
Like patent owners, those owning copyrights to works of authorship may license those works freely. A copyright license allows a person other than the copyright owner to (1) reproduce copyrighted work; (2) prepare derivate works; (3) distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, transfer, rent, lease, or lending; (4) the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) the right to display the work publicly; and (6) the right to transmit the copyrighted work.
Unlike patent and copyright licensing, the owner of a trademark seeking to license the trademarked material must do so carefully, so as to maintain control of the trademark. The rationale is, without the requirement of control, the right of a trademark owner to license his mark separately from the business in connection with which it has been used would create the danger that products bearing the same trademark might be of diverse qualities. Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959). If the licensor is not compelled to take some reasonable steps to prevent misuses of his trademark in the hands of others, the public will be deprived of its most effective protection against misleading uses of a trademark. Id. Therefore, it is required that a trademark owner retain quality control over those goods and services that bear the trademark, otherwise the trademark rights may be lost and deemed abandoned by the owner.