trademark

Showing: 8 - 14 of 28 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Innovation Act, Passed By The House, Would Make Major Changes To Section 365(n)’s IP Licensee Protections

It isn’t law yet, but on December 5, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a significant patent reform bill known as the "Innovation Act." Although the focus of the legislation is on patent infringement litigation and other patent law revisions, the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, would also make major changes to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. Follow the link in the prior sentence for a copy of the Innovation Act in the form passed by the House and received in the Senate last week. It would also address the interplay between Section 365(n) and Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy cases, the subject of my last post, on the Qimonda AG decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Licensee Protections Under The Current Version Of Section 365(n). Section 365(n) was added to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988 to protect licensees of intellectual property in the event the licensor files bankruptcy.

  • Under Section 365(n) as it now exists, if a debtor or trustee rejects a license, the 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 payments.
  • 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.
  • To read more about the current version of Section 365(n)’s benefits and its protections, follow the link in this sentence.

Limits Of The Current Section 365(n). These existing protections have several significant limitations. First, the Bankruptcy Code’s special definition of "intellectual property" excludes trademarks from the scope of Section 365(n)’s protections (although a recent Seventh Circuit decision may have opened an alternative path for trademark licensees to retain their rights). Another is that Section 365(n) is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and applies only in a U.S. bankruptcy case. Most other countries do not have protections similar to Section 365(n).

Proposed Changes In The House-Passed Innovation Act. The Innovation Act would make four major changes to Section 365(n)’s protections for licensees.

  • First, it would extend Section 365(n)’s protections, including through an amendment to Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of intellectual property, to licenses of trademarks, service marks, and trade names.
  • Second, rejection of a trademark, service mark, or trade name license would not relieve the trustee (or presumably a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case) of the debtor’s contractual obligations to monitor and control the quality of a licensed product or service.
  • Third, it would expand the payments that a licensee would have to continue to make to the estate, if it elected to retain its license rights, to include not only "royalty" payments but also "other" payments under the license.
  • Fourth, it would amend Section 1522 of the Bankruptcy Code to make Section 365(n) directly applicable to Chapter 15 cases, providing that if a foreign representative rejects or repudiates an IP license, the licensee would be entitled to elect to retain its IP rights under Section 365(n).

If enacted and signed by the President, the Innovation Act’s revisions would apply as of the date of enactment to pending and future cases.

Will The Innovation Act Become Law? I’m a bankruptcy lawyer, not a political analyst, but it’s fair to say we shouldn’t get too excited about these potential legislative changes just yet. The Innovation Act has passed only the House and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where the bill meets an uncertain fate. Even if the Innovation Act passes the Senate, the Section 365(n) provisions could be amended or the legislation could otherwise stall. However, the Innovation Act is not a one-party bill: it passed the House with a large bipartisan majority on a 325-91 vote. That suggests it has the potential for support in the Senate.

Potential Impact Of Innovation Act’s Changes To Section 365(n). If the changes to Section 365(n) do become law, they would be the most significant revisions since its enactment in 1988.

  • The biggest changes would be the extension of Section 365(n)’s protections to trademarks, service marks, and trade names, together with the monitoring obligations on a trustee. In the 25 years since Section 365(n) was enacted, trademark licensees have lived under the specter of losing trademark license rights in bankruptcy. These revisions would be a sea change in the trademark area.
  • In addition, the Innovation Act provides that the trustee or debtor in possession would not be relieved of a contractual obligation to continue to monitor the quality of goods or services using a mark, in effect limiting the benefits of rejection to an estate for the protection of consumers. However, it’s unclear how a trustee would be able to meet such an obligation, particularly if an estate had no assets, and how a trustee could meet a long-term obligation to monitor quality given that the Chapter 7 case would eventually be closed. These were some of the difficult issues that led Congress to leave trademarks out of Section 365(n) originally.
  • Another significant change is the requirement that a licensee that elects to retain its IP rights under Section 365(n) essentially continue to make all payments under the license agreement and not simply those determined to be "royalty" payments. If this provision becomes law, drafters of license agreements will need to consider how rejection and the non-performance of the licensor’s obligations would impact payments otherwise required under the license agreement.
  • As a timely anticipation of the Fourth Circuit’s Qimonda AG decision, the Innovation Act would apply Section 365(n) in all Chapter 15 cases through an amendment to Section 1522. The language used — applying when a foreign representative rejects or "repudiates" a license agreement — suggests that the House intended this to cover not only rejection under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code but also equivalent foreign law powers to repudiate or disclaim contracts. By placing the Section 365(n) reference in a new, separate subsection of Section 1522 governing protection of creditors and other interested persons, it seems that Section 365(n) would apply in all Chapter 15 cases, regardless of whether the foreign representative sought preliminary or discretionary relief under Sections 1519 or 1521.

Conclusion. If it becomes law in its current form, the Innovation Act would bring the most sweeping changes to Section 365(n) since its enactment in 1988. Although there’s a long way to go before that actually happens, the breadth of the proposed changes and their impact on bankruptcy and IP law makes this piece of legislation one to watch. Stay tuned.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Do Trademark Licensees Have Reason For Hope? New Article Discusses Recent Decisions On Trademark Licenses And Bankruptcy

I have written a number of times on the blog about the impact of bankruptcy on trademark licenses, in particular what happens to trademark licensees whose licensors file bankruptcy. Trademark licensees face a real risk of losing their license rights in bankruptcy since they have no protection under Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, recent decisions, including an important decision last summer from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, may give licensees reason for hope.

An article I wrote discussing these recent developments was just published by the American Bar Association’s Business Law Section in its online publication, Business Law Today. The article, titled "There’s Something Happening Here: Recent Bankruptcy Developments May Given Trademark Licensees Reason to Hope" is available by following the link. You can also download a PDF of the article.  

I hope you find the article of interest. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Seventh Circuit Bankruptcy Ruling Is Big Win For Trademark Licensees

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.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

First Published Court Of Appeals Opinion Issued Answering Whether Trademark Licenses Are Assignable In Bankruptcy

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. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Third Circuit Decision Suggests Another Way For Trademark Licensees To Protect Against License Rejection In Bankruptcy

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. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues

Protecting IP Rights From A Licensor’s Bankruptcy: What You Need To Know About Section 365(n)

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.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Spring 2009 Edition Of Bankruptcy Resource Is Now Available

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.