California Creditor's Rights & Business Bankruptcy Lawyer & Attorney : Robert Eisenbach : Business Bankruptcy Blog

On July 9, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, and in doing so handed a major victory to trademark licensees whose licenses are rejected in bankruptcy by trademark owners. A copy of the opinion is available through this link. However, before discussing the details of the opinion, it's important to put it in context first. And for that, we need to journey back to the 1980s.

A History Of Rejection. Back in 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985). The Fourth Circuit held that Lubrizol, a nonexclusive patent licensee whose patent license was rejected as an executory contract in the bankruptcy case of Lubrizol's licensor, debtor Richmond Metal Finishers, could not "rely on provisions within its agreement with [the debtor] for continued use of the technology."  According to the Lubrizol court, when Congress enacted Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, governing the effect of rejection of an executory contract, "the legislative history of § 365(g) makes clear that the purpose of the provision is to provide only a damages remedy for the non-bankrupt party," and no specific performance remedy. The Fourth Circuit held that, as a result, when the debtor rejected the contract, Lubrizol, as the patent licensee, lost its rights under the license.

Congress Protects Certain IP Licensees. In reaction to the Lubrizol decision and the concerns of the decision's potential impact on patent and other technology licensees, in 1988 Congress added Section 365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code, expressly permitting licensees of intellectual property to elect to retain their rights to the intellectual property. However, Congress also added to the Bankruptcy Code its own definition of "intellectual property" for Section 365(n) purposes, and decided not to include trademarks in Section 101(35A)'s definition. As a result, trademark licensees have none of the protections of Section 365(n). Follow the link for more on Section 365(n) and its protections for licensees.

Back To The Future. With that history in mind, it's time to come back to the future, or at least the present. Lubrizol's decision that a licensee cannot rely on the provisions of its license agreement for continued use of the intellectual property, together with the fact that Section 365(n)'s protections do not extend to trademark licenses, has for years left trademark licensees at great risk of losing all trademark rights if the license is rejected. That is, it seemed that way until just the past couple of years.

• A 2010 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the In re: Exide Technologies case held that when a trademark license was provided in connection with the sale of a business, and that sale had been substantially performed, the trademark license was no longer executory, could not be rejected, and the licensee could continue to use the trademarks.
• In a concurring opinion in Exide Technologies, Judge Ambro went further, concluding that rejection of a trademark license should not deprive the licensee of all rights. In enacting Section 365(n) but leaving trademarks outside the definition of "intellectual property," Congress did not intend that Lubrizol's result apply to trademark licenses and instead courts should use equitable powers to protect licensees.
• Last year, in the case that led to the Seventh Circuit's decision here, the bankruptcy court in In re Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co., Inc, 459 B.R. 306 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011), decided to "step into the breach," follow Judge Ambro's reasoning, and begin the "development of equitable treatment" of trademark licensees that it concluded Congress had anticipated would occur. In so doing, it held that despite rejection of a manufacturing and supply agreement that included a trademark license, the licensee could continue to sell trademarked goods as it had been licensed to do.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision. The bankruptcy court's decision was taken up on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. In its July 9, 2012 opinion, written by Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the bankruptcy court's analysis but ultimately affirmed its decision. In its opinion, however, the Seventh Circuit took aim directly at the Lubrizol decision and reasoning.

The facts of the Sunbeam case are fairly straightforward. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. made various consumer products, including box fans, which were covered by its patents and trademarks. Lakewood contracted with Chicago American Manufacturing ("CAM") to make its fans for 2009, granting CAM a license to the relevant patents and trademarks. In recognition of both the investment CAM would have to make to manufacture the fans and Lakewood's own distressed financial condition, the agreement authorized CAM to sell directly any of the 2009 production of box fans that Lakewood did not purchase. A few months after the agreement was signed, Lakewood was forced into involuntary bankruptcy and a trustee was appointed. The trustee sold Lakewood's assets, including the patents and trademarks, to Sunbeam Consumer Products, which wanted to sell its own fans and not have to compete with CAM's sales. The trustee rejected the CAM agreement and, when CAM continued to sell the remaining fans, Sunbeam sued CAM for infringement.

The issue on appeal was the effect of the trustee's rejection of the CAM agreement, and specifically the trademark license, on CAM's ability to sell the fans. The Seventh Circuit's focus on the Lubrizol decision was apparent:

Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), holds that, when an intellectual-property license is rejected in bankruptcy, the licensee loses the ability to use any licensed copyrights, trademarks, and patents. Three years after Lubrizol, Congress added §365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code. It allows licensees to continue using the intellectual property after rejection, provided they meet certain conditions. The bankruptcy judge held that §365(n) allowed CAM to practice Lakewood’s patents when making box fans for the 2009 season. That ruling is no longer contested. But “intellectual property” is a defined term in the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. §101(35A) provides that “intellectual property” includes patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. It does not mention trademarks. Some bankruptcy judges have inferred from the omission that Congress codified Lubrizol with respect to trademarks, but an omission is just an omission. The limited definition in §101(35A) means that §365(n) does not affect trademarks one way or the other. According to the Senate committee report on the bill that included §365(n), the omission was designed to allow more time for study, not to approve Lubrizol. See S. Rep. No. 100–505, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1988). See also In re Exide Technologies, 607 F.3d 957, 966–67 (3d Cir. 2010) (Ambro, J., concurring) (concluding that §365(n) neither codifies nor disapproves Lubrizol as applied to trademarks). The subject seems to have fallen off the legislative agenda, but this does not change the effect of what Congress did in 1988.

Chief Judge Easterbrook's opinion noted that the bankruptcy court had permitted CAM to continue using the trademarks on equitable grounds, but rejected that approach as going beyond what the Bankruptcy Code permits. The Seventh Circuit then directly addressed the Lubrizol decision:

Although the bankruptcy judge’s ground of decision is untenable, that does not necessarily require reversal. We need to determine whether Lubrizol correctly understood §365(g), which specifies the consequences of a rejection under §365(a). No other court of appeals has agreed with Lubrizol—or for that matter disagreed with it. Exide, the only other appellate case in which the subject came up, was resolved on the ground that the contract was not executory and therefore could not be rejected. (Lubrizol has been cited in other appellate opinions, none of which concerns the effect of rejection on intellectual-property licenses.) Judge Ambro, who filed a concurring opinion in Exide, concluded that, had the contract been eligible for rejection under §365(a), the licensee could have continued using the trademarks. 607 F.3d at 964–68. Like Judge Ambro, we too think Lubrizol mistaken.

After observing that outside of bankruptcy a licensor's breach does not terminate a licensee's right to use intellectual property, and Section 365(g) provides that rejection is breach, the Seventh Circuit turned to the impact of Section 365(g) and rejection in bankruptcy:

What §365(g) does by classifying rejection as breach is establish that in bankruptcy, as outside of it, the other party’s rights remain in place. After rejecting a contract, a debtor is not subject to an order of specific performance. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 531 (1984); Midway Motor Lodge of Elk Grove v. Innkeepers’ Telemanagement & Equipment Corp., 54 F.3d 406, 407 (7th Cir. 1995). The debtor’s unfulfilled obligations are converted to damages; when a debtor does not assume the contract before rejecting it, these damages are treated as a pre-petition obligation, which may be written down in common with other debts of the same class. But nothing about this process implies that any rights of the other contracting party have been vaporized. Consider how rejection works for leases. A lessee that enters bankruptcy may reject the lease and pay damages for abandoning the premises, but rejection does not abrogate the lease (which would absolve the debtor of the need to pay damages). Similarly a lessor that enters bankruptcy could not, by rejecting the lease, end the tenant’s right to possession and thus re-acquire premises that might be rented out for a higher price. The bankrupt lessor might substitute damages for an obligation to make repairs, but not rescind the lease altogether.

The Court then distinguished rejection from avoidance powers, which might lead to rescission or termination of an agreement, observing that "rejection is not 'the functional equivalent of a rescission, rendering void the contract and requiring that the parties be put back in the positions they occupied before the contract was formed.” Thompkins v. Lil’ Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1306 (11th Cir. 2007). It 'merely frees the estate from the obligation to perform' and 'has absolutely no effect upon the contract’s continued existence'. Ibid. (internal citations omitted)." Follow the link for more background on the Thompkins decision.

The Seventh Circuit referenced scholarly criticism of the Lubrizol decision before turning back to the Fourth Circuit's opinion: 

Lubrizol itself devoted scant attention to the question whether rejection cancels a contract, worrying instead about the right way to identify executory contracts to which the rejection power applies.

Lubrizol does not persuade us. This opinion, which creates a conflict among the circuits, was circulated to all active judges under Circuit Rule 40(e). No judge favored a hearing en banc. Because the trustee’s rejection of Lakewood’s contract with CAM did not abrogate CAM’s contractual rights, this adversary proceeding properly ended with a judgment in CAM’s favor.

A Significant Decision. The Seventh Circuit's opinion in the Sunbeam case not only creates a circuit split that could potentially lead the Supreme Court to address the issue, but more significantly represents the first court of appeals decision in 27 years to challenge Lubrizol's view of how rejection impacts an intellectual property license. Although binding only in the Seventh Circuit (much like, in theory, Lubrizol was binding only in the Fourth Circuit), the Sunbeam decision has the potential to impact licensee rights in cases across the country. Licensees, and especially trademark licensees, will be arguing that rejection does not terminate their license rights. Debtors and purchasers of trademarks may well argue otherwise. If followed by other courts, the Sunbeam decision and its potential interplay with Section 365(n) raises a number of questions, including:

• Aside from the right to use the licensed trademarks, does the licensee keep other rights under its agreement, such as exclusivity if applicable?
• How long does the right to the trademarks continue, the full term of the license agreement plus any extensions, or some shorter period?
• If royalties are required under a trademark license, must the trademark licensee continue to pay them post-rejection to use the licensed trademarks, as an IP licensee covered by Section 365(n) is required to do, or can the trademark licensee argue that rejection is a material breach excusing that performance?
• Since under Sunbeam rejection does not terminate trademark license rights, does the same analysis apply to intellectual property other than trademarks, including those covered by Section 365(n)?
• Are licensees of patents, copyrights, or trade secrets, otherwise protected by Section 365(n), required to follow Section 365(n)'s statutory scheme to retain their rights, or can they rely on the Sunbeam decision's analysis of the effect of rejection as an alternative approach? 
• How will purchasers of trademarks and other assets react to the potential continued use of the marks by licensees under rejected trademark licenses?

Conclusion. As these questions suggest, the full impact of the Seventh Circuit's Sunbeam decision is yet to be determined. It remains to be seen how other circuits -- and bankruptcy courts in important venues such as Delaware and the Southern District of New York -- will react. Given the circuit split now created, it's possible the Supreme Court could address the issue, either in Sunbeam or a later case. In the meantime, however, a long-standing and often accepted view of the impact of rejection on intellectual property licenses, and especially on trademark licenses, has been upended. It will likely take courts, licensors, and licensees some time to sort through how the new, post-Sunbeam state of the law will play out. This could get interesting -- stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It's been a long wait, but we finally have a published decision from a U.S. Court of Appeals answering whether a trademark license is assignable in bankruptcy without the licensor's consent. On July 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in In re: XMH Corp., written by Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, and a copy of the opinion is available by following the link in this sentence. Until now, the closest we had come to a Court of Appeals decision on this issue was an unpublished affirmance by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the district court's decision in In re N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D. Nev. 2005). For more on the Ninth Circuit case  including the Supreme Court's interest in one of the issues in the case, take a look at these earlier posts on the blog, here, here, and here.

The Context. The dispute that led to the Seventh Circuit's decision arose in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Hartmarx Corporation (which later changed its name to "XMH"). One of its subsidiaries, Simply Blue ("Blue"), which was also in bankruptcy, sold its assets in a Section 363 sale to two buyers (the "purchasers").

• Among Blue's assets was an executory contract with Western Glove Works ("Western"), which Blue sought to assign to the purchasers. Western objected, arguing that the contract could not be assigned because it was a sublicense to Blue of a trademark licensed by Western. The bankruptcy court agreed with Western and XMH appealed. 
• That's when things got a little complicated. While XMH's appeal was pending, Blue and the purchasers amended the contract. Under the amendment, title to the contract was left with Blue but the purchasers assumed all of Blue's contractual duties, together with the right to receive all fees to which Blue was otherwise entitled. The bankruptcy court approved the amendment and Western appealed from that decision.
• In the meantime, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's original decision holding that the contract could not be assigned, effectively allowing the original contract to be assigned. Western appealed the district court's decision and that brought the case to the Seventh Circuit. 

The Court's Decision. After disposing of a few jurisdictional issues springing from the complicated way the case had played out, the Seventh Circuit reached the merits. The Court first looked to Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits assignment of an executory contract if "applicable law" permits the non-debtor party to the contract to refuse to accept performance from an assignee, regardless of whether the contract prohibits or restricts assignment. In the XMH Corp. case, the contract did not prohibit or restrict assignment (but neither did it permit it). Western argued that "applicable law" was trademark law because the contract stated that Western was a licensee of a trademark for "Jag Jeans." The Court noted that "Jag" is a federally registered trademark, although "Jag Jeans" is not.

The Court held that if the contract included a trademark sublicense when XMH attempted to assign the contract, it was not assignable. This was true regardless of whether federal trademark law applied, any particular state's trademark law applied, and also, apparently, even if Canadian law applied (Western is a Canadian company). The Seventh Circuit put it this way:

None of this matters, though, because as far as we've been able to determine, the universal rule is that trademark licenses are not assignable in the absence of a clause expressly authorizing assignment. Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006)(per curiam); In re N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230, 235-36 (D. Nev. 2005); 3 McCarthy on Trademarks § 18:43, pp. 18-92 to 18-93 (4th ed. 2010).

After describing how consumers rely on a trademark as an indicator of a good's quality, the Court explained that if a trademark owner (or licensee sublicensing the mark) allows another company to produce the trademarked goods, it

will not want the licensee to be allowed to assign the license (that is, sublicense the trademark) without the owner's consent, because while the owner will have picked his licensee because of confidence that he will not degrade the quality of the trademarked product he can have no similar assurance with respect to some unknown future sublicensee.

Because this is the normal reaction of a trademark owner, it makes sense to make the rule that a trademark license is not assignable without the owner's express permission a rule of contract law--what is called a 'default' rule because it is the rule if the parties do not provide otherwise (as they are allowed to do).

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit held that although the contract included a trademark sublicense, the sublicense had expired and the parties had not designated the contract, post-expiration, as a trademark sublicense. Further, the Court held that the balance of the contract was only a service agreement and not an implied trademark license. The Court also refused to go down the "dark path" of whether a contract could be a trademark license for some purposes but not others. As such, with no actual trademark sublicense in existence at the time of assignment, the default rule discussed above did not apply and the executory contract could be assigned. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions approving the assignment of the contract as amended.

An IP Attorney's Observations. For the perspective of an in-house intellectual property attorney on the Seventh Circuit's decision, including helpful links to the trademark and the parties' underlying agreements, you may find Pamela Chestek's discussion of the case on her "Property, intangible" blog, interesting reading.

Good News For Trademark Owners. With the Seventh Circuit's XMH Corp. decision, we now have two Courts of Appeals (the Seventh and Ninth Circuits) on record holding that trademark licenses are not assignable in bankruptcy absent the consent of the trademark owner or sublicensor. While the full force of a decision depends on whether other courts follow its holding, trademark owners will likely find the guidance provided by this decision meaningful, especially given the Seventh Circuit's observation that the non-assignability of trademark licenses is "the universal rule." That said, how the decision is viewed in other circuits, particularly in Delaware and New York where many large Chapter 11 cases are filed, remains to be seen, so stay tuned. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Trademark licensees have long faced the serious risk of losing all license rights to a trademark if the licensor files bankruptcy and rejects the trademark license as an executory contract. However, a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the In re: Exide Technologies case may give some trademark licensees new hope of retaining their license rights even in bankruptcy.

Limited protection of Section 365(n). It can be devastating for a licensee to lose access to licensed intellectual property. Often a licensee will build in licensed technology into its products or develop an entire business line or brand around a licensed trademark.  Recognizing how important in-licensed IP can be, in 1988 Congress added Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, giving licensees of certain types of intellectual property special protections in bankruptcy. These protections allow licensees to retain their rights to the licensed intellectual property – but there’s a catch. The Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “intellectual property” includes, among other things, patents, patent applications, copyrights, and trade secrets, but unfortunately for trademark licensees, it does not include trademarks. Follow the link in this sentence for more on Section 365(n)'s licensee protections other than in the trademark area.

Trademark licensee's special risk. With no special protection, the trademark licensee faces the risk of having its license, usually considered to be an executory contract, rejected by the trademark owner in bankruptcy. If the trademark owner decides that the license is now unfavorable and a better deal can be had under a new license agreement with someone else, the trademark owner likely will reject the existing trademark license agreement and, generally, terminate the licensee’s rights to use the mark. The enforceability of phase-out provisions, which allow a licensee to continue to use a mark for a limited time period after a license is terminated, is unclear. Regardless, most courts hold that the trademark licensee eventually will lose its rights to the trademark following rejection. In some cases the ability to re-license can be of great value to a trademark owner in bankruptcy, and thus to its creditors, but it puts the licensee at substantial risk. For more on this topic, you may find this earlier blog post on the trademark licensee's predicament of interest.

The Third Circuit's Exide Decision. In a June 1, 2010 decision in In re: Exide Technologies (a copy of the decision is available by clicking on the preceding link), the Third Circuit examined a series of agreements, determined to constitute one integrated agreement, pursuant to which Exide Technologies sold an industrial battery business, and licensed certain trademark rights, to EnerSys. When Exide filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002, it sought to reject the agreement as an executory contract. The bankruptcy court granted Exide's motion to reject the agreement, and that decision was affirmed by the district court. On appeal to the Third Circuit, that court held that under New York law, which governed the agreement, once a party has substantially performed, a later breach by that party does not excuse performance. The Third Circuit further held that EnerSys had substantially performed the agreement in the more than ten years since it was signed, rendering the agreement no longer an executory contract. 

• The Third Circuit held that EnerSys had substantially performed by paying the full purchase price and operating under the agreement for ten years, as well as assuming certain liabilities related to the business EnerSys purchased when it obtained the trademark license.
• The Court of Appeals also held that EnerSys's obligation not to use the trademark outside of the licensed business was not a material obligation because it was a condition subsequent and, in any event, did not relate to the agreement's purpose -- the transfer of the industrial battery business in return for a $135 million payment.
• Likewise, the Third Circuit concluded that a quality standards provision was minor because it related only to the standards of the mark for each battery produced and not to the transfer of industrial battery business that was the agreement's purpose.
• In addition, an indemnity obligation that had subsequently expired, and a further assurances obligation where no remaining required cooperation was identified, were held not to outweigh the factors supporting a finding of substantial performance.

A Concurring Opinion On The Effect Of Rejection. Judge Ambro wrote a concurring opinion to address the bankruptcy court's conclusion that rejection of a trademark license left EnerSys without the right to use the Exide mark. In his concurrence, Judge Ambro analyzed the history of Section 365(n), disagreed that the exclusion of trademarks from its reach created a negative inference that rejection of a trademark license should be tantamount to termination, and stated that courts should be able to prevent the extinguishment of all rights upon rejection. As Judge Ambro wrote in his conclusion:

Courts may use § 365 to free a bankrupt trademark licensor from burdensome duties that hinder its reorganization. They should not—as occurred in this case—use it to let a licensor take back trademark rights it bargained away. This makes bankruptcy more a sword than a shield, putting debtor-licensors in a catbird seat they often do not deserve.

It will be interesting to see whether other courts follow Judge Ambro's views or continue to hold that trademark licensees whose licenses have been rejected no longer retain any rights to use the trademarks at issue.

A New Argument For Trademark Licensees? For trademark licensees looking to preserve their rights in the face of a motion to reject a trademark license, the Exide Technologies decision may provide some additional support.

• However, before breathing a sigh of relief, trademark licensees should remember that the decision involved a series of agreements that had been largely performed over the decade since they were signed. In many ways, the trademark licensee was just a part of what the Third Circuit found was, chiefly, an agreement to sell a business division. In essence, although the trademark itself was not sold, the trademark license rights went along with the business. 
• Typically, trademark licenses more often arise not in connection with a sale of a business but as a separate, often stand-alone, license of certain trademarks for commercial exploitation by the licensee. In that context, it may be far more difficult to establish that the agreement has been substantially performed such that it is no longer an executory contract.

Still, for those situations in which the argument is available, the Third Circuit's decision in Exide Technologies underscores that all trademark licenses are not executory contracts and, at least in some cases, the trademark licensee might just get to keep the license rights after all, even in the face of a rejection motion in bankruptcy. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many companies rely on in-bound licenses of intellectual property, especially those involving patents or trade secrets, and spend millions of dollars on research, development, and ultimately commercialization of drugs or products incorporating the licensed IP. With so much at stake, licensees frequently ask a critical question: Can our license rights be terminated if the licensor files bankruptcy?

Assumption Or Rejection. A license is typically held to be an executory contract. This means that a licensor in bankruptcy (or its bankruptcy trustee) has the option of assuming or rejecting the license. Generally, a debtor licensor can assume a license if it meets the same tests (cures defaults and provides adequate assurance of future performance) required to assume other executory contracts.  Most licensees will not object to the assumption of their license as long as the debtor can actually continue to perform. Instead, the real concern for licensees is whether they risk losing their rights to the licensed IP if the license is rejected.

Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n). To address this concern, in 1988 Congress added Section 365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code to give licensees special protections.  If the debtor or trustee rejects a license, under Section 365(n) a licensee can elect to retain its rights to the licensed intellectual property, including a right to enforce an exclusivity provision. In return, the licensee must continue to make any required royalty payment. The licensee also can retain rights under any agreement supplementary to the license, which should include source code or other forms of technology escrow agreements.  Taken together, these provisions protect a licensee from being stripped of its rights to continue to use the licensed intellectual property.

Some Important Limitations. If the license is rejected, however, the licensor will no longer have to perform under the license. This means the licensor will not have to update or continue to develop the IP, and will not have to make available any updates later developed. In addition, Section 365(n) only applies in a U.S. bankruptcy case. It generally will not be of any help in a bankruptcy or insolvency of a non-U.S. licensor under applicable foreign law.

No Protection For Trademark Licensees. Many people expect intellectual property to include trademarks, but when Section 365(n) was enacted a special, limited definition of "intellectual property" was also added to the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy definition includes trade secrets, U.S. patents and patent applications (less clear as to foreign patents), copyrights, and mask works, but it does not include trademarks. This distinction means that a trademark licensee enjoys none of Section 365(n)'s special protections and is at risk of losing its trademark license rights if the licensor files bankruptcy. For more on the special bankruptcy risk facing trademark licensees, follow the link in this sentence.

Getting The Most Out Of Section 365(n). Although Section 365(n) gives licensees significant comfort within limits, there are a number of approaches a licensee can take to maximize the statute's benefits while avoiding its pitfalls. Here are a few to consider:

• Make sure you actually have a granted license. Section 365(n) only applies to actual license rights as they existed at the time the bankruptcy case was commenced. This means that an agreement by the licensor to grant a license to IP at some later date, including a springing license grant on a bankruptcy filing, will likely be unenforceable if a bankruptcy is filed. Get a present grant of a license to any important IP or risk not having a license to it at all.
• Consider a technology escrow. Licensees sometimes forget that Section 365(n) is not self-executing. This means that Section 365(n) doesn't require the licensor to deliver the embodiment of the licensed intellectual property to the licensee unless the license or an agreement supplementary to the license expressly provides for such a right. One solution is to include this delivery provision in the license itself. Another common approach is to establish a technology (often a source code) escrow into which the embodiment and updated versions of the embodiment are in fact deposited, to be released to the licensee on specified conditions.
• Refer to Section 365(n) in the license. Section 365(n) applies to licenses of bankruptcy-defined intellectual property whether it is mentioned in the license or not. That said, including an express reference that the license involves such IP, as the old saying goes, "wouldn't hurt." A provision in the license that the agreement involves IP covered by Section 365(n), although not binding on the bankruptcy court, may be helpful in persuading a bankruptcy trustee -- or the bankruptcy judge -- that the IP involved is indeed subject to Section 365(n)'s protections.
• Save the election until later. If you do include a Section 365(n) reference in the license, it's usually better to state that no Section 365(n) election is then being made. Things change, and there is always a chance that the IP will turn out to be less important in future years, meaning you might elect to treat a rejected license as terminated.
• Get bankruptcy advice before you sign the license. As the points above illustrate, even with Section 365(n), protecting your IP license can be tricky if a bankruptcy is later filed. Be sure to seek advice from bankruptcy counsel knowledgeable about IP licenses when the license is being drafted, not just after the licensor gets in financial trouble.

Conclusion. Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code can provide valuable protections for licensees of intellectual property, but those protections have their limitations. Taking steps to maximize your rights when the license is being drafted can make a big difference if the licensor later files bankruptcy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Spring 2009 edition of the Absolute Priority newsletter, published by the Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Bankruptcy & Restructuring group, of which I am a member, has just been released. The newsletter gives updates on current developments and trends in the bankruptcy and workout area. Follow the links in this sentence to access a copy of the newsletter or to register to receive future editions. You can also subscribe to the blog to learn when future editions of the Absolute Priority newsletter are published, as well as to get updates on other bankruptcy topics.

The latest edition of Absolute Priority covers a range of cutting edge topics, including:

• Claim issues involving the Madoff SIPA proceeding;
• How new Bankruptcy Code provisions involving swap agreements and swap participants are being interpreted;
• The importance of the mutuality requirement in setoffs;
• Post-petition rent and Section 503(b)(9) "20 day goods" claims; and
• The use of a trademark after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

This edition also reports on some of our recent representations of official committees of unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases involving major retailers. These include Mervyn's, Boscov's, Gottschalk's, Lenox Sales, Goody's, KB Toys, BTWW Retail, and Innovative Luggage, among others. In addition, a note from my colleague, Jeffrey Cohen, the editor of Absolute Priority, discusses the current economic climate and the impact it continues to have on how debtors and creditors have been approaching bankruptcies and restructurings.

I hope you find this latest edition of Absolute Priority to be a helpful resource.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court, or at least two of the Justices, is interested in deciding whether the "hypothetical test" or the "actual test" should be used in determining whether an intellectual property license can be assumed by a debtor in possession under Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. That was the clear message from the somewhat unusual statement by Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Breyer joined, issued on March 23, 2009, in connection with the Supreme Court's denial of a writ of certiorari in the N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. case. You can read a copy of the entire statement by following the link in the prior sentence.

The N.C.P. Marketing Case. As a refresher, in 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued its first of a kind decision, In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), holding that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable in bankruptcy absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision and here, here, and here to read earlier posts on the case. Last May, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment "for the reasons provided by that court" in an order designed as "not for publication."

Assumption And Assignment. A key basis for the District Court's decision in the N.C.P. Marketing Group case was the way the Ninth Circuit has interpreted Section 365(c)(1), specifically on the question of whether a debtor in possession can assume an intellectual property license. In bankruptcy parlance, assumption means that the debtor gets to keep the license. Usually, debtors are allowed to exercise their business judgment when deciding whether to assume or reject (read: breach and stop performing) an executory contract, as well as to assume and assign one to a third party. However, Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code puts a limit on a debtor's ability to assign executory contracts, and perhaps even to assume them, when "applicable law" gives the non-debtor party to the contract the right to refuse to deal with someone else. In the N.C.P. Marketing Group decision, the District Court held that federal trademark law under the Lanham Act was such "applicable law" and rendered non-exclusive trademark licenses nonassignable.

The Key Bankruptcy Code Section. Section 365(c)(1) is so important to this debate that it bears careful review. Here's what it says:

(c) The trustee may not assume or assign any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties, if—

(1)(A) applicable law excuses a party, other than the debtor, to such contract or lease from accepting performance from or rendering performance to an entity other than the debtor or the debtor in possession, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties; and

(B) such party does not consent to such assumption or assignment.

Hypothetical Versus Actual Test. If a debtor cannot assign an IP license without consent of the licensor, can it at least assume the license? That question has led courts to examine ever so closely the first seven words of Section 365(c): "The trustee may not assume or assign..."

• When the statute says that the trustee may not assume or assign an IP license, does the word "or" really mean "and" too?
• Put differently, what happens when a debtor is only trying to assume (keep) an IP license and is not actually trying to assign it? Does the Bankruptcy Code language mean that it can neither assume nor assign the license or does it only mean that the debtor cannot assign the license?
• That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the so-called "hypothetical test" (which reads Section 365(c)(1)'s language as asking whether the debtor hypothetically could assign the license even if it's only proposing to assume it) and the "actual test" (which interprets the statute's language as asking only what the debtor is actually proposing to do).
• The U.S. Courts of Appeals for at least three circuits have adopted the hypothetical test. The Ninth Circuit (covering California, Nevada, Arizona, and a number of other Western states), the Third Circuit (which includes Delaware, the venue of many Chapter 11 cases), and the Fourth Circuit (covering Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and North and South Carolina), have held that Section 365(c)(1) gives most IP licensors a veto right over proposals by a Chapter 11 debtor to assign -- and even to assume -- IP licenses.
• For a more complete discussion of these issues, take a look at this earlier post, entitled "Assumption of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?"

Justice Kennedy's Statement. N.C.P. Marketing Group petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the decision denying it the ability to assume the trademark license. Although also voting to deny review, Justice Kennedy issued a three-page statement on that decision to express his view, joined in by Justice Breyer, that the Supreme Court should considering granting certiorari in a future case on the "significant question" of whether the hypothetical test or the actual test should be applied in interpreting Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Justice Kennedy summed up his analysis this way:

The division in the courts over the meaning of §365(c)(1) is an important one to resolve for Bankruptcy Courts and for businesses that seek reorganization. This petition for certiorari, however, is not the most suitable case for our resolution of the conflict. Addressing the issue here might first require us to resolve issues that may turn on the correct interpretation of antecedent questions under state law and trademark-protection principles. For those and other reasons, I reluctantly agree with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. In a different case the Court should consider granting certiorari on this significant question.

Justice Kennedy's discussion of the two tests suggests that he (and perhaps Justice Breyer) may be leaning toward the actual test. Although noting that the actual test "may present problems of its own," including that it aligns Section 365 "with sound bankruptcy policy only at the cost of departing from at least one interpretation of the plain text of the law," Justice Kennedy aimed most of his criticism in the statement at the hypothetical test.

• Specifically, Justice Kennedy commented that one "arguable criticism of the hypothetical approach is that it purchases fidelity to the Bankruptcy Code's text by sacrificing sound bankruptcy policy." He stated that the hypothetical test "may prevent debtors-in-possession from continuing to exercise their rights under nonassignable contracts, such as patent and copyright licenses." Continuing, he noted that without these licenses, "some debtors-in-possession may be unable to effect the successful reorganization that Chapter 11 was designed to promote."
• He also remarked on what he perceived as a "windfall" to nondebtor parties to valuable executory contracts. While outside of bankruptcy the nondebtor cannot renege on its agreement, if the debtor files bankruptcy "then the nondebtor obtains the power to reclaim--and resell at the prevailing, potentially higher market rate--the rights it sold to the debtor." Although most non-exclusive licenses are not treated as a sale of intellectual property, Justice Kennedy appears to view the potential loss of IP license rights due to a bankruptcy filing as an unfair result.

Conclusion. In denying review in the N.C.P. Marketing Group case, the Supreme Court has let stand the decision of the courts below that, where the hypothetical test applies as it does in the Ninth Circuit, a non-exclusive trademark license cannot be assumed by a debtor in possession. However, given the detailed statement issued by Justice Kennedy, and joined in by Justice Breyer, it appears that the chances of the Supreme Court granting certiorari in a future IP license assumption case have increased. If such a case reaches the Supreme Court, the current split in the circuits on this important intersection between bankruptcy and intellectual property law may finally be resolved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back in March I gave an update on In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., a case addressing whether a debtor can assume a trademark license over the trademark owner's objection. In 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued its first of a kind decision, In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), holding that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable in bankruptcy absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision and here and here to read earlier posts on the case. 

The N.C.P. Marketing Court's Analysis. In reaching its conclusion, the District Court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:

Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party. 

The trademark owner in that case, Billy Blanks of theBilly Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program, successfully moved the court to compel rejection of the trademark license because under the "hypothetical test" analysis of Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contracts that cannot be assigned by the debtor without the nondebtor party's consent cannot be assumed by the debtor either. (For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at this earlier post entitled "Assumption of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?")  

The Ninth Circuit Appeal. N.C.P. Marketing appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, the appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument had been scheduled for November 5, 2007.

• Prior to the oral argument, the Chapter 7 trustee for N.C.P. Marketing reached a settlement in the case. At the trustee's request, the Ninth Circuit took the oral argument off calendar and directed the parties to move to dismiss the appeal if the settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
• However, instead of approving the settlement the Bankruptcy Court authorized a sale of the appeal rights to certain objecting parties, who then restarted the appeal before the Ninth Circuit and requested an oral argument.

The Ninth Circuit Affirms The District Court's Decision. In an unpublished order dated May 23, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for oral argument and affirmed the District Court's judgment "for the reasons provided by that court." The appellants' request for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied by order dated July 9, 2008. The Ninth Circuit designated the May 23, 2008 order affirming the District Court as "not for publication," meaning it is not precedent under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Ninth Circuit's Circuit Rules. Nevertheless, the order may be cited in other cases.

A Final Thought. Precedent or not, the Ninth Circuit's order has affirmed the District Court's decision on this important issue. Trademark owners now have a stronger argument in the Ninth Circuit (and also in the Southern District of Florida given the In re Wellington Vision, Inc. decision last year), that non-exclusive trademark licenses may not be assigned, or even assumed, in bankruptcy cases absent consent of the trademark owner.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Last November I reported on the status of the Ninth Circuit appeal in In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., a case addressing whether a debtor can assume a trademark license over the trademark owner's objection. Back in 2005 the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued its first of a kind decision, In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), holding that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable in bankruptcy absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision and here to read an earlier post on the case.

The N.C.P. Marketing Court's Analysis. In reaching its conclusion, the District Court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:

Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party.  

The trademark owner in that case, Billy Blanks of the Billy Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program, successfully moved the court to compel rejection of the trademark license because under the "hypothetical test" analysis of Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contracts that cannot be assigned by the debtor without the nondebtor party's consent cannot be assumed by the debtor either. (For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at this earlier post entitled "Assumption of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?")  

The Ninth Circuit Appeal. N.C.P. Marketing appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, the appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument had been scheduled for November 5, 2007. Prior to the oral argument, the Chapter 7 trustee for N.C.P. Marketing reached a settlement in the case. At the trustee's request, the Ninth Circuit took the oral argument off calendar and directed the parties to move to dismiss the appeal if the settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. At the time, I commented that it appeared that no Ninth Circuit decision would be issued in the case due to the settlement.

The Settlement Is Rejected. Back in the Bankruptcy Court, the Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion for approval of the settlement, but N.C.P. Marketing and certain other parties filed an objection and offered a competing bid for the appeal rights. In something of a surprise, on February 28, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a brief order denying the trustee's motion for approval of the settlement and instead approved a sale of the appeal rights and certain other assets to the objecting parties. The objecting parties thereafter posted the undertaking required by the Bankruptcy Court's order.

Appeal May Go Forward. As a result, the Ninth Circuit appeal may be revived, although no new oral argument has been scheduled yet. Barring further developments, trademark licensors and licensees may end up seeing a Ninth Circuit decision after all on the important issue of whether trademark licenses can be assumed in bankruptcy. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over a year ago, I posted on a first of its kind decision in In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision and here to read the earlier post on the case.

The N.C.P. Marketing Court's Analysis. In reaching its conclusion, the District Court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:

Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party.  

The trademark owner in that case, Billy Blanks of the Billy Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program, successfully moved the court to compel rejection of the trademark license because under the "hypothetical test" analysis of Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contracts that cannot be assigned by the debtor without the nondebtor party's consent cannot be assumed by the debtor either. (For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at this earlier post entitled "Assumption of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?")  

The Ninth Circuit Appeal. In December 2005, the parties appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and had been scheduled for oral argument on November 5, 2007.

• In July 2007, however, the N.C.P. Marketing Chapter 11 case was converted to Chapter 7. 
• On October 24, 2007, the Chapter 7 trustee asked the Ninth Circuit to reschedule the oral argument because of a pending settlement in the case.
• In response, the Ninth Circuit took the oral argument off calendar and directed the parties to move to dismiss the appeal if the settlement is approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

Still No Court Of Appeals Decision. If the settlement is approved, no Ninth Circuit decision will be issued. Instead, this case seems to be headed to an ending similar to that in In re Wellington Vision, Inc. (see this earlier post on the Wellington Vision case for more details), perhaps the only other bankruptcy decision to date to address this trademark issue. There, conversion of the case to Chapter 7 also led to a settlement without an appellate decision. With these recent developments in the In re N.C.P. Marketing case, trademark licensors and licensees will have to wait longer still for an appeals court decision on this important issue at the intersection of trademark and bankruptcy law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over, among other areas, patent appeals, so it's not every day that a Federal Circuit decision appears on this business bankruptcy blog. (Actually, it's been about a year since this post discussing another Federal Circuit decision.) However, a September 19, 2007 opinion (available here) of the Federal Circuit rested largely on the intersection of patent law and the terms of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Since the decision denied a trust created under the plan standing to bring the debtor's patent infringement claims, it's a significant one for debtors and creditors alike. After discussing the court's decision I'll conclude with my suggested take-away from the case.

The At Home Corporation Plan And Liquidation Trusts. The litigation arose in the At Home Corporation Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, which was filed in September 2001. As part of the confirmed plan of liquidation, a general unsecured creditor liquidation trust (called GUCLT) was created to pursue various claims for the benefit of creditors, including certain patent infringement claims against Microsoft Corporation. A separate liquidation trust (called AHLT) received ownership of the At Home patent at issue in the litigation, among other assets. GUCLT was not granted a license to the patent.

The Patent Litigation And Federal Circuit Decision. The patent litigation reached the Federal Circuit in 2006. Although the plan and related documents granted GUCLT the express right to pursue the patent litigation claims at issue, the Federal Circuit found that to be insufficient to confer standing. It held that the patent statutes provide protection to the party with a right to exclude, not the party with a right to sue. Because the right to exclude others from practicing the patent (part of AHLT's rights) had been separated from the right to sue for infringement (GUCLT's rights), GUCLT was not protected under the patent statutes. The Federal Circuit summed up the situation this way:

The problem for GUCLT and AHLT is that the exclusionary rights have been separated from the right to sue for infringement. The liquidation plan contractually separated the right to sue from the underlying legally protected interests created by the patent statutes—the right to exclude. For any suit that GUCLT brings, its grievance is that the exclusionary interests held by AHLT are being violated. GUCLT is not the party to which the statutes grant judicial relief. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 500. GUCLT suffers no legal injury in fact to the patent’s exclusionary rights. As the Supreme Court stated in Independent Wireless, the right to bring an infringement suit is “to obtain damages for the injury to his exclusive right by an infringer.” 269 U.S. at 469; see also Sicom, 222 F.3d at 1381 (“Standing to sue for infringement depends entirely on the putative plaintiff’s proprietary interest in the patent, not on any contractual arrangements among the parties regarding who may sue…”); Ortho, 52 F.3d at 1034 (“[A] right to sue clause cannot negate the requirement that, for co-plaintiff standing, a licensee must have beneficial ownership of some of the patentee’s proprietary rights.”).

Since GUCLT had the right to sue but not the right to exclude others from practicing the patent, and since AHLT had the right to exclude others but not the right to sue for infringement, neither liquidating trust could sue for the infringement alleged in the GUCLT's underlying lawsuit. The Federal Circuit ruled that the problem could not be solved by the typical practice of joining the legal title holder, here AHLT, to the patent litigation as a party. Although such joinder solves prudential standing requirements, the court held that it does not solve the constitutional standing requirement of actual legal injury. GUCLT did not suffer legal injury because it had no right to exclude others from practicing the patent.

The Federal Circuit's majority opinion prompted an interesting dissent, which ended with the following:

While I do not read any precedent as directly governing the peculiar circumstances of this case, I also do not read any as precluding co-plaintiff standing for GUCLT. I believe that, in denying all possibility for enforcing the patent, the majority opinion extends limitations on co-plaintiff standing without a reasoned basis. Accordingly, while neither GUCLT nor AHLT individually may pursue infringement litigation, I would not deprive the patent of all value. Because I would allow GUCLT and AHLT, as co-plaintiffs, standing to sue Microsoft, I respectfully dissent.

The View From IP Bloggers. Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O patent law blog has an interesting post on the case, and he gets special thanks for first reporting on the decision. For another view, you may find this post from the Patry Copyright Blog published by William Patry, Google's Senior Copyright Counsel, of interest.

Important Lessons. On his patent law blog, Dennis Crouch gives the practice pointer that he believes patent lawyers should learn from the decision: "A non-title-holder must be granted an exclusive license as well as full litigation rights in order to have standing to sue for patent infringement." That is helpful advice for patent lawyers, but I have a suggestion of my own.

• When intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks is involved in a bankruptcy case, get expert advice from IP counsel, in addition to bankruptcy advice. The problem may be separating exclusionary rights from the right to sue for patent infringement one day and transferring a trademark without its goodwill the next.
• This suggestion applies when dealing with, for example, the transfer of IP in a bankruptcy case, whether by liquidation trusts, Section 363 asset sales, or something else, or assessing the risk of continuing patent infringement when purchasing IP assets.
• As the Federal Circuit's decision shows, the interplay between IP issues and bankruptcy cases can be complex and the possible outcomes surprising. Getting expert advice can help you avoid these and other traps for the unwary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Intellectual property licenses continue to be significant to companies across a wide range of industries. This fact makes their treatment in business bankruptcy cases a topic of keen interest. 

Can A Debtor Licensee Retain IP License Rights? When the debtor in possession is a licensee under a patent, copyright, or trademark license, a key question arises: Can the license be assumed (bankruptcy-speak for kept) or will the bankruptcy filing put the licensor in a position to force rejection of the license -- resulting in the ultimate termination of the debtor's right to use the licensed IP?  A new case, discussed below, recently sided with the debtor in possession.

One Statute, Three Tests. This issue has led to a significant split of authority among bankruptcy courts and courts of appeal around the country, stemming from different interpretations of the language in Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides as follows:

(c) The trustee may not assume or assign any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties, if—

(1)(A) applicable law excuses a party, other than the debtor, to such contract or lease from accepting performance from or rendering performance to an entity other than the debtor or the debtor in possession, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties; and

(B) such party does not consent to such assumption or assignment.

Some courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have sided with the licensor and interpret Section 365(c)(1) to prohibit both assignment and assumption. Other courts, including the First Circuit, have permitted such licenses to be assumed.

• Despite the split, most courts agree that Section 365(c)(1) prohibits assignment of executory contracts without the non-debtor contracting party's consent if "applicable law" requires such consent because that would require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party. 
• A number of courts have held that when the "applicable law" is federal patent, copyright, or trademark law, such consent is required.
• Courts diverge, however, on whether the statute's language should be read to prohibit a debtor in possession from assuming such executory contracts or only from assigning them.

Rather than cover that ground here, if this topic is new to you I suggest reading an earlier post entitled "Assumption Of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?" It discusses in detail how different courts have interpreted Section 365(c)(1), leading to the licensor-favorable "hypothetical test," the debtor-favorable "actual test," and the newer, debtor-favorable Footstar analysis. 

A Word On Footstar. Before moving on to the new decision, a brief word about the Footstar case may be helpful. In In re Footstar, Inc,, 323 B.R. 566 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Adlai Hardin of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York took a somewhat different approach in analyzing the statute. He concluded that Section 365(c)(1)'s use of the word "trustee" does not (as other courts had taken for granted) include the debtor or debtor in possession when assumption is sought because assumption does not require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party other than the debtor or debtor in possession. A trustee is a new party and the statute logically provides that a trustee may not "assume or assign" such an executory contract.

A Common Scenario. How does this issue come up in Chapter 11 cases? Well, here's a typical situation. The debtor is the licensee under a prepetition patent license. The patent licensor files a motion to compel the debtor in possession to reject the patent license agreement or alternatively to have the automatic stay lifted to permit the licensor to cancel the agreement. The licensor argues that under the "hypothetical test" interpretation of Section 365(c)(1), the debtor in possession cannot assign the license and, as a result, cannot assume the license either. With neither option open, the licensor argues, the debtor in possession should be compelled to reject the license.

The Aerobox Decision. This was the situation that recently played out in the In re Aerobox Composite Structures, LLC Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Ruling on just such a motion by a patent licensor, on July 27, 2007, Judge Mark B. McFeeley of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico issued an 11-page decision holding that the actual test, and Judge Hardin's analysis in Footstar, was the correct interpretation of Section 365(c)(1). As such, he denied the licensor's motion and held that the debtor in possession was not barred by Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code from assuming the prepetition patent license at issue in that case. The Bankruptcy Court summed up its holding as follows:

Similarly, the bankruptcy court in Footstar reasons that it makes perfect sense for the statute, which uses the term, “trustee,” to prohibit the trustee from assuming or assigning a contract, because the trustee is an “entity other than the debtor in possession” but it makes no sense to read “trustee” to mean “debtor in possession.” Footstar, 323 B.R. at 573. Doing so

would render the provision a virtual oxymoron, since mere assumption [by the debtor in possession] (without assignment) would not compel the counterparty to accept performance from or render it to “an entity other than” the debtor.

Id.

This Court agrees.

Thus, where the debtor-in-possession seeks to assume, or, as is the situation in the instant case, where the debtor-in-possession has neither sought to assume nor reject the executory contract but simply continues to operate post-petition under its terms, 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1) does not prohibit assumption of the contract by the debtor-in-possession and cannot operate to allow the non-debtor party to the executory contract to compel the Debtor to reject the contract. In reaching this conclusion, the Court finds that the “actual test” articulated in Cambridge Biotech, and the reasoning of the court in Footstar, is the better approach to § 365(c)(1) when determining whether a debtor-in-possession is precluded from assuming an executory contract.

Venue Still Matters. The decision is interesting because it represents another bankruptcy court, this time outside of the Southern District of New York, endorsing the analysis in the Footstar decision. That said, Judge McFeeley wrote on something of a clean slate because the Tenth Circuit has not yet taken a view on whether the hypothetical test, the actual test, or the Footstar analysis controls. As this circuit-by-circuit chart of Section 365(c)(1) decisions shows (last updated in March 2007), many other circuits have staked out a position on the issue. Absent a Supreme Court decision or new legislation resolving the circuit split, where a debtor files bankruptcy will continue to make a big difference in the relative rights of licensors and debtors over intellectual property licenses in Chapter 11 cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again, a district court has faced the issue of whether a non-exclusive trademark license can be assumed by a debtor in possession. Before the November 2005 decision in In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), no court had directly addressed that question. The decision in the N.C.P. Marketing case, now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, held that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable, absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary, and in a hypothetical test jurisdiction such as the Ninth Circuit, they cannot be assumed by the debtor in possession. For a more detailed discussion on the N.C.P. Marketing case, you may find this post of interest. For an analysis of some recent trends on the broader topic of assumption of IP licenses, try this post.

The Wellington Vision Case. Earlier this year, a second district court, this time the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, faced the same question in an appeal in the In re Wellington Vision, Inc. Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

• Pearle Vision sought relief from the automatic stay to terminate a franchise agreement with Wellington Vision, arguing that Wellington could not assume the agreement because it Included a non-exclusive license of Pearle Vision trademarks.
• The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the motion for stay relief by this two-page order, holding that the inclusion in the franchise agreement of a trademark license made the agreement, under federal trademark law, non-assignable absent consent by Pearle Vision.

Appeal To The District Court. Wellington Vision filed an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's decision.

• In its opening brief, Wellington argued that (1) Pearle Vision had failed to establish that the franchise agreement included a trademark license, (2) a provision in the franchise agreement allowing for assignments on consent that cannot be unreasonably withheld meant that the parties had opted out of applicable law, and (3) Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code only prohibits assumption or assignment by a trustee, not by a debtor in possession, citing the Footstar case.
• Pearle Vision argued in its answer brief that "applicable law" is the federal Lanham Act, which makes trademark licenses personal and non-assignable, and that Section 365(c)(1) creates a hypothetical test and precludes assignment or assumption of the license.
• Wellington's reply brief asserted that the District Court should not apply Section 365(c)(1) to debtors in possession and further that it should hold that this license was assignable by its terms.

The District Court's Decision On Appeal. On February 20, 2007, Judge Alan S. Gold of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision in this 14-page decision. The District Court first held that the franchise agreement expressly included a non-exclusive license to certain Pearle Vision trademarks, making the Lanham Act the "applicable law" to be considered under Section 365(c)(1). It then held that the agreement's provisions contemplating assignment under certain conditions did not constitute consent to any specific assignment or an "opt out" of the Lanham Act's general restrictions on assignment, distinguishing In re Quantegy, 326 B.R. 467 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2005), relied on by Wellington. Finally, the District Court held that Section 365(c)(1) did apply to debtors in possession and not just to trustees, citing the Eleventh Circuit's decision in City of Jamestown v. James Cable Partners, L.P., 27 F.3d 534 (11th Cir. 1994).

No Further Appeal Has Been Filed. Unlike the N.C.P. Marketing case, the District Court's decision in this case will not be appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Wellington case was converted to a Chapter 7 case. Also, within the past two months litigation between Pearle, Wellington, and a guarantor of certain debt owed to Pearle was settled, resolving the issues decided by the District Court.

Trademark Owners Win Another One. Although it did not cite the N.C.P. Marketing decision, the Wellington Vision court becomes only the second district court to address the assumability of trademark licenses -- and the second to hold that they are not assumable when the hypothetical test applies. This is more good news for trademark owners, who typically want as much control as possible over licenses to their marks, but bad news for debtors, who face the prospect of losing valuable trademark licenses (and franchise agreements including them) if they file bankruptcy. Stay tuned for more developments on this issue, including the Ninth Circuit's decision in N.C.P. Marketing, which is likely still months away.

Special thanks to Warren Agin of the Tech Bankruptcy blog, whose post entitled The Descent Into Darkness Continues, first discussed the Wellington Vision case. The title of that post also gives you a sense of how many bankruptcy lawyers feel about the hypothetical test, its application to IP licenses, and its impact on debtors. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Peter S. Menell, a Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall) and the Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, is a highly regarded expert on intellectual property law. I wanted to let you know that he's just posted a very interesting and comprehensive article on the Social Science Research Network (known as SSRN) reviewing how intellectual property assets are affected by bankruptcy. Having served on a panel with Professor Menell a few years ago, I can attest to his deep knowledge of these issues.

Entitled "Bankruptcy Treatment of Intellectual Property Assets: an Economic Analysis," the article begins with an extensive discussion of patent, copyright, and trademark law and then analyzes the complex interplay between IP and bankruptcy law. Covering a broad range of topics, the article discusses Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, how assumption and assignment of exclusive and non-exclusive licenses have been treated by the courts, and the issues surrounding the perfection of security interests in intellectual property.

If you're familiar with bankruptcy, you'll find the article's overview of intellectual property law particularly helpful. If you're familiar with IP law, you'll benefit from the article's discussion of how bankruptcy impacts IP rights. If you're new to both, the article will give you a serious introduction to these legal issues. I recommend the article to anyone looking for a top-flight review and analysis of what happens when intellectual property finds its way into bankruptcy court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I've posted in the past about bankruptcy asset sales and how parties with executory contracts need to keep track of bankruptcy cases to protect their rights. Steve Jakubowski of The Bankruptcy Litigation Blog has an entertaining and informative post about a recent Court of Appeals decision involving rappers, recording companies, copyrights, and bankruptcy that raises some similar issues.

It's a cautionary tale about the importance of monitoring bankruptcy cases and acting to protect rights when copyrights are involved. (So you don't get complacent, the same message applies for patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property, and especially when licenses are involved.) After describing the case briefly, I discuss some points to keep in mind when IP crosses the bankruptcy court's door.

Setting The Stage. Some background on the facts of the case will help put things in perspective.

• Act One: In 1989, Jeffrey Thompkins, a rap artist known as JT Money, entered into an exclusive recording agreement with the debtor (a recording company). In the agreement, Thompkins sold his sound recording copyrights in various songs in exchange for the debtor's agreement to pay royalties on the records released. (A later agreement made the debtor a half owner in the musical composition copyrights as well.)
• Act Two: Six years later, the debtor ended up in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The copyrights were sold "free and clear" to another recording company for $800,000 as part of the debtor's plan of reorganization, which the bankruptcy court confirmed. The recording agreement was ultimately rejected as an executory contract. Apparently, Tompkins neither objected to the sale nor defended his claim for damages after the recording agreement was rejected.

The Curtain Falls. Almost six years after the bankruptcy sale, Tompkins sued the purchaser of the copyrights in federal court, alleging copyright infringement and other claims. The district court granted the purchaser's motion for summary judgment and the decision was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that even though the debtor had rejected the original recording agreement, under bankruptcy law that rejection acted only as a breach and not as a rescission of the contract. Quoting from earlier decisions, the Court of Appeals commented that rejection does not "vaporize" a debtor's rights under a rejected contract. Here the debtor retained ownership of the copyrights transferred under the recording agreement even though it breached the obligation to pay royalties. Because the purchaser was the actual owner of the copyrights, the infringement claim failed.

Encore: Lessons For The Audience. What can intellectual property owners and debtors learn from this decision?

• A transfer of IP under an executory contract will not be rescinded if the buyer later files bankruptcy and rejects the agreement.
• An IP owner looking for more control over its IP should consider granting a license instead of making an outright sale subject only to a royalty obligation. In some industries this may not be a realistic alternative, but when possible it can give IP owners more control. 
• In many jurisdictions, IP owners who have granted only non-exclusive licenses prohibiting assignment will have the equivalent of a veto right in bankruptcy over proposed assignments of the license. This is generally true for copyrights, patents, and possibly trademarks, and can have a big impact on a debtor's ability to transfer license rights.
• When a licensee or other debtor with rights related to IP files bankruptcy, it's critical for IP owners to monitor the bankruptcy case and be prepared to take action to defend their rights. Among the issues that can come up: asset sales involving a sale of the IP or an assignment of license rights, breaches of license terms, and infringement issues.
• Likewise, debtors and creditors committees need to understand what IP rights the debtor has, what consents may be required to assign or transfer those rights, and how the rights of third party licensors and other IP owners may impact asset sales and reorganization prospects.

Conclusion. The intersection between intellectual property and bankruptcy law can be complex. Whether you are an IP owner, a debtor, or a committee, getting good legal advice before and after a bankruptcy is filed can be critical in protecting your rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an earlier post I discussed how a recent district court case gave trademark owners a leg up when a licensee files for bankruptcy. This begs the question: Does the advantage switch back to the licensee if the trademark owner files for bankruptcy? The answer generally, and perhaps surprisingly, is no. 

Limited protection of Section 365(n). Of course, it can be devastating for a licensee to lose access to licensed intellectual property. Often a licensee will build in licensed technology into its products or develop an entire business line or brand around a licensed trademark.  Recognizing how important in-licensed IP can be, in 1988 Congress added Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, giving licensees of certain types of intellectual property special protections in bankruptcy. These protections allow licensees to retain their rights to the licensed intellectual property – but there’s a catch. The Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “intellectual property” includes, among other things, patents, patent applications, copyrights, and trade secrets, but unfortunately for trademark licensees, it does not include trademarks.

Trademark licensee's special risk. With no special protection, the trademark licensee faces the risk of having its license, a form of executory contract, rejected by the trademark owner in bankruptcy. If the trademark owner decides that the license is now unfavorable and a better deal can be had under a new license agreement with someone else, the trademark owner likely will reject the existing trademark license agreement and terminate the licensee’s rights to use the mark. The enforceability of phase-out provisions, which allow a licensee to continue to use a mark for a limited time period after a license is terminated, is unclear. Regardless, the trademark licensee eventually will lose its rights to the trademark following rejection. In some cases the ability to re-license can be of great value to a trademark owner in bankruptcy, and thus to its creditors, but it puts the licensee at substantial risk.

The bundled license. What about a license covering both trademarks and other intellectual property that is protected by Section 365(n)? Often a license of software or other products that involve copyrights or patents will include a license to use an associated trademark. In that case, even if the license were rejected, the licensee would have Section 365(n) rights to retain the "bankruptcy intellectual property" -- in this example the rights to the copyrighted or patented IP -- but would still lose the trademark license.  One case so holding is In re Centura Software Corp., 281 B.R. 660 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2002).  You can read that interesting decision here.

How can trademark licensees protect themselves? There are a few, albeit limited, strategies available for trademark licensees to protect themselves. Whether you are a trademark licensee or licensor, be sure to get advice from a bankruptcy attorney on your specific situation.

• Unbundle the payments. In negotiating bundled licenses, the licensee should anticipate the prospect of losing rights to the trademark if a bankruptcy is filed. One approach would be to separate out any royalty or license payments for the trademark from those related to the other intellectual property being licensed. This way, the licensee can avoid having to pay amounts allocable to the rejected trademark license in order to retain its other IP license rights under Section 365(n). 
• Take ownership of the mark. Would-be licensees with enough leverage sometimes demand that the trademark and its goodwill be transferred to them, coupled with a license back to the now-former trademark owner. This is perhaps the most effective method, but also the least likely to be achieved.
• Get a security interest. Another strategy involves taking a security interest in the mark or the licensor's other assets to secure the damage claim that the licensee would have if the trademark owner rejects the license. Licensees pressing for a security interest do so in part hoping that a debtor licensor faced with a secured claim for rejection damages may decide against rejecting the license in the first place.
• Oppose a rejection motion. Once a bankruptcy is filed, a trademark licensee should engage counsel right away and consider challenging a debtor or trustee's decision to reject the trademark license. If little good would come of the rejection for the debtor or its creditors, the licensee could oppose the motion arguing that the decision to reject is an inappropriate exercise of the debtor's business judgment. Although such objections are rarely sustained, if successful this strategy could allow the licensee to continue to use the trademark without facing the consequences of a rejected license.

Short of these approaches, there is precious little trademark licensees can do to protect themselves from this bankruptcy risk. It is a fact that gives debtor licensors clear advantages and sometimes keeps trademark licensees up at night.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Defending intellectual property ("IP") litigation can be expensive and, if unsuccessful, often crippling for the defendant's business. Sometimes an accused infringer facing IP litigation will seek bankruptcy protection to invoke the automatic stay. Unless lifted by the bankruptcy court, the automatic stay will prevent further litigation against the debtor, outside of the bankruptcy claims process, for pre-bankruptcy claims. 

The collision between infringement litigation and bankruptcy, however, raises issues beyond the automatic stay, especially with respect to continuing and past infringement claims. This post addresses these questions in the context of both corporate and individual debtors.

Continuing Infringement

What if a corporate debtor continues to infringe?

If a corporation or other business debtor in Chapter 11 is continuing to infringe intellectual property rights, the IP owner may have what's known as an "administrative claim" in the debtor's bankruptcy case.  Administrative claims, as the name implies, are claims that result from the administration of the bankruptcy estate and include claims for payment for products and services delivered to a debtor post-petition and for fees and expenses of bankruptcy lawyers and other professionals advising the Chapter 11 debtor in possession and creditors committee. Administrative claims are paid ahead of all pre-petition unsecured claims and almost all other priority claims, and sometimes can have a major impact on a debtor's ability to reorganize. 

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the Eagle-Picher Industries Chapter 11 case held that post-petition patent infringement claims qualify as administrative claims. In that case, although the debtor faced a $20 million administrative claim related to patent infringement litigation, the court held that the claim survived confirmation of the debtor's bankruptcy plan.

A non-debtor IP owner may also be able to get relief from the automatic stay (see my earlier post on that topic) to pursue infringement claims, including to seek injunctive relief for continuing infringement, in a court other than the bankruptcy court. It is possible that the automatic stay will not even apply to post-petition acts of infringement, but IP owners and debtors should get advice from a bankruptcy attorney about their specific situation.

Are continuing infringement claims covered by an individual's bankruptcy discharge?

Individual debtors will generally get a discharge of their pre-bankruptcy debts. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this year, however, makes clear that an individual who files bankruptcy does not get a free pass to keep on infringing a patent. In Hazelquist v. Guchi Moochie Tackle Company, Inc., 437 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the court held that the debtor's bankruptcy discharge was only retrospective, covering claims relating to acts prior to bankruptcy, and did not immunize the debtor from claims for continuing infringement. As a result, the court ruled that the patent holder could assert claims against the debtor outside of bankruptcy court for each act of post-petition infringement.  It's an interesting decision and the full opinion is available here.  You might also enjoy reading the Patently-O blog's post on the decision by Dennis Crouch, who seems to like the tackle company's name as much as I do. 

Past Infringement

What about claims for past infringement? 

An IP owner can file a proof of claim for past infringement claims, but that claim will most likely be considered an unsecured claim and may end up being paid cents on the dollar. Filing a proof of claim is certainly the less costly way to go, and with a corporate debtor may be the principal remedy available for past infringement damages. 

If the infringer is an individual, however, another question is whether claims for past infringement can be declared nondischargeable, allowing the IP owner to pursue the debt notwithstanding the bankruptcy discharge. (As discussed in an earlier post, the notion of nondischargeable debts applies only to individuals and not to corporations or other entities.) Although seeking a nondischargeability determination often doesn't make economic sense, owners of intellectual property sometimes believe that it's important to protect those rights through vigorous pursuit of infringers, even against those who file bankruptcy. 

So is an infringement claim nondischargeable? A recent decision from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (known in the trade as "the BAP") of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said yes, at least when the claim is for truly willful copyright infringement.  Why?  Well, under the Bankruptcy Code, a debt that results from a "willful and malicious injury" is nondischargeable. In In re: Albarran, decided on July 24, 2006, the BAP held that a judgment for willful copyright infringement, which included an award of statutory damages, interest, and attorney's fees, involved "willful and malicious injury." The BAP's decision is available here. 

In essence, the BAP held that willful copyright infringement, involving an intent to harm or knowledge that one's actions were substantially certain to cause harm, (1) is an injury to the copyright holder and (2) statutory damages under the Copyright Act qualify as a debt arising from this injury even though the plaintiff may not have suffered identifiable economic damage.  Willful injury under the Bankruptcy Code requires that the debtor intend the consequences of his action, generally excluding negligent or reckless conduct.  In In re: Albarran, the BAP concluded that the particularly willful nature of the copyright infringement involved satisfied this requirement.  With willfulness determined, the court was able to imply the element of malice. 

Does the answer depend on the type of IP infringed?

The BAP's decision involves copyrights and not patents or trademarks, so the question remains whether willful patent or trademark infringement would also be considered a nondischargeable "willful and malicious injury" under the Bankruptcy Code. The BAP's decision did make several references to the kinship between copyright and patent law and noted that "patent infringement has historically been viewed as a tort because of its invasion of another's rights."  In 2004, in a case called In re Trantham, a BAP from a different circuit, the Sixth Circuit, held that a claim for willful patent infringement was nondischargeable. You can read that decision here. Although the answer is not settled yet, if a debtor were found to have engaged in intentional patent or trademark infringement, the odds are that a bankruptcy court would find damages for such conduct to be nondischargeable.

Is a BAP the same as the U.S. Court of Appeals?  

Although these BAP decisions are very instructive, a word of caution is in order.  Unlike a U.S. Court of Appeals itself, a BAP is made up of bankruptcy judges only, not federal circuit judges. Given a BAP's place in the judicial system's hierarchy, its decisions are not given the same precedential weigh as U.S. Court of Appeals decisions.  This means that it's possible for a U.S. Court of Appeals itself to reach a different conclusion. (In fact, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the BAP's In re: Albarran decision was just filed last week.) Still, the two BAP decisions in In re: Albarran and In re Trantham are well-reasoned and may be followed by other courts. 

Impact Of Asset Sale

Can a debtor sell assets free and clear of infringement claims?

Generally, a debtor will be able to sell its assets in a Section 363 bankruptcy sale free and clear of claims (see earlier post on asset sales), including claims for past infringement.  However, if an IP owner asserts claims for continuing infringement related to the assets and how they are used, the sale will in all likelihood not be free and clear of those continuing infringement claims. Instead, the purchaser could well end up buying the defense of an infringement lawsuit along with the assets.

A Final Note

Do last year's bankruptcy law changes have an impact?

Given the amendments to the Bankruptcy Code made by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, even if an individual debtor got a discharge of a willful infringement claim, he or she would have a very hard time getting another discharge within the next eight years. The message to individual infringers in bankruptcy: discharge or not, better stop infringing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Apparently, until last November, no court had been called upon to resolve whether a trademark licensee in bankruptcy can assume, or assume and assign, a non-exclusive trademark license without the trademark owner's consent.  

The decision. We got the first answer to that question in a case called In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), when the U.S. District Court in Nevada held that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable, absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision. In reaching its conclusion, the court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:

Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes Nevada, California, and other western states) had previously interpreted the key Bankruptcy Code provision involved, Section 365(c)(1), to prevent a debtor from assuming an agreement when it does not have the right to assign it. (For a discussion about how bankruptcy can affect intellectual property licenses, including the impact of this earlier Ninth Circuit case, you may want to read my earlier post on the topic.) 

Building on this Ninth Circuit law, the trademark owner in the N.C.P. Marketing Group case argued that under trademark law the debtor could neither assume nor assign the non-exclusive trademark license at issue. The district court agreed, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly granted the trademark owner’s motion to compel the debtor to reject the trademark license, forcing the debtor to give up its license rights. 

Good news for trademark owners.  The decision is good news for trademark owners. Many have have long worried that if a licensee files bankruptcy it might be able to use the Bankruptcy Code’s general power to assume and assign executory contracts to assign trademark licenses to third parties over the trademark owner’s objection. The N.C.P. Marketing Group decision extends to trademark owners protections already recognized by many courts for patent and copyright holders. The case does not address whether the same rule would apply to exclusive trademark licenses, but given the trademark owner's similar rights and duties to control the quality of goods sold under a licensed mark, the result could be the same. 

Bad news for debtor licensees. The decision, of course, is bad news for trademark licensees that file bankruptcy.  If the decision is followed by other courts, trademark licensees in bankruptcy will be unable to assign their rights to third parties or even to keep those rights for themselves without the trademark owner's consent.  The value of these debtors, and their ability to repay creditors, could suffer as well.

On appeal. The district court's decision may not be the last word. The debtor has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, although a ruling could be a number of months away.  I will report on the Ninth Circuit's decision when it comes down.  In the meantime, this is only one district court decision, applying Ninth Circuit law, so its full impact has yet to be determined.

Just for kicks. Finally, for those interested, the trademarks involve the Billy Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program.  At least until the Ninth Circuit rules on appeal, the district court's decision will give trademark owners like Billy Blanks a "leg up" in their efforts to control their marks. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

The major role intellectual property, or "IP," plays in our economy makes intellectual property licenses an especially significant type of executory contract.  Whether you are a licensor or licensee, it's important to know what can happen to IP licenses when a bankruptcy is filed.

Licensor in bankruptcy.  A licensor in bankruptcy (or its bankruptcy trustee) has the option of assuming or rejecting a license. Generally, a debtor licensor can assume a license if it meets the same tests (cures defaults and provides adequate assurance of future performance) required to assume other executory contracts.  Many licensees will not have a problem with assumption of their license as long as the debtor can actually continue to perform. Instead, the real concern for licensees is the fear of losing their rights to the licensed IP, which often can be mission critical technology, if the license is rejected.

• Special protections. Recognizing this concern, the Bankruptcy Code, in Section 365(n), provides licensees with special protections.  If the debtor or trustee rejects a license, under Section 365(n) a licensee can elect to retain its rights to the licensed intellectual property, including even a right to enforce an exclusivity provision. In return, the licensee must continue to make any required royalty payments. The licensee also can retain rights under any agreement supplementary to the license, which includes source code or other forms of technology escrow agreements.  Taken together, these provisions protect a licensee from being stripped of its rights to continue to use the licensed intellectual property.
• Watch out for trademarks. While many people would expect intellectual property to include trademarks, the Bankruptcy Code has its own limited definition of "intellectual property." The bankruptcy definition includes trade secrets, patents and patent applications, copyrights, and mask works.  Importantly, however, it does not include trademarks. This distinction means that trademark licensees enjoy none of Section 365(n)'s special protections and those licensees are at risk of losing their trademark rights in a bankruptcy.

Licensee in bankruptcy.  The law is different when an IP licensee files bankruptcy.  The Bankruptcy Code, in Section 365(c)(1), contains an exception to the general rule that executory contracts can be assumed and assigned to third parties if defaults are cured and adequate assurance of future performance is demonstrated. The exception kicks in when "applicable law" precludes such an assignment absent consent of the nondebtor party. 

• Restrictions on assignment. Case law from several United States Courts of Appeals holds that "applicable law" -- here patent and copyright law (and perhaps trademark law) -- in fact precludes an assignment of rights under an intellectual property license unless the IP owner has consented.  These courts have ruled that non-exclusive patent and copyright licenses are personal and nonassignable. As a result, a patent or copyright holder can prevent a debtor licensee from assuming and assigning a non-exclusive license to a third party without the licensor's consent. 
• License at risk. In the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, a licensor not only can stop a debtor from assigning the license to a third party, it can even prevent a debtor from keeping the license for itself.  Although the reason is technical, stemming from how the Ninth Circuit has interpreted Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the impact can be very real. For those interested, the landmark Ninth Circuit decision on this point is In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc.,165 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Get advice. The interplay between bankruptcy and intellectual property law is complex.  Whether you are a licensor or licensee, you should get legal advice about your specific license agreement and the ways you may be able to protect your rights if a bankruptcy is filed.  Likewise, companies that anticipate having to file bankruptcy should pay careful attention to their IP licenses before they file.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link