Talerättsklausuler i licensavtal - Civil- och processrättsliga effekter av överenskommelser om licenstagares talerätt i intrångsmål
(2020) JURM02 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det är vanligt att parter till ett licensavtal kommer överens om vilken part som ska vara ansvarig för att skydda licensobjektet mot intrång. I samband med det inför parterna ofta en klausul i licensavtalet som föreskriver begränsningar i licenstagarens rätt att föra intrångstalan.
Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att undersöka vad parter till ett licensavtal bör beakta vid införandet av en klausul som begränsar licenstagarens rätt att föra intrångstalan. Med hjälp av den rättsdogmatiska metoden har uppsatsen besvarat om domstolen kommer att avvisa alternativt ogilla en intrångstalan som licenstagaren för i strid med avtalet. Slutsatsen är att en licenstagares intrångstalan väckt i strid med avtalet kommer att avvisa av domstolen om... (More) - Det är vanligt att parter till ett licensavtal kommer överens om vilken part som ska vara ansvarig för att skydda licensobjektet mot intrång. I samband med det inför parterna ofta en klausul i licensavtalet som föreskriver begränsningar i licenstagarens rätt att föra intrångstalan.
Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att undersöka vad parter till ett licensavtal bör beakta vid införandet av en klausul som begränsar licenstagarens rätt att föra intrångstalan. Med hjälp av den rättsdogmatiska metoden har uppsatsen besvarat om domstolen kommer att avvisa alternativt ogilla en intrångstalan som licenstagaren för i strid med avtalet. Slutsatsen är att en licenstagares intrångstalan väckt i strid med avtalet kommer att avvisa av domstolen om licensobjektet är ett varumärke. Är licensobjektet ett patent kommer domstolen varken att avvisa talan eller ogilla målet på grund av avtalsvillkoret.
Det finns lagstöd i 10 kap. 2 § varumärkeslagen (2010:1877) för parterna till en varumärkeslicens att avtala om begränsningar i licenstagarens talerätt vid intrångsmål. Uppfyller licenstagaren inte förutsättningarna i klausulen kommer domstolen att avvisa intrångstalan utan att utföra en sakprövning. Att licenstagaren inte får sin sak prövad innebär en inskränkning av dennes rätt till domstolsprövning, vilken säkerställs genom artikel 6(1) Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna. Inskränkningen bör dock vara tillåten eftersom licenstagaren kan rikta ett anspråk gentemot licensgivaren på grund av avtalsbrott om denne förhåller sig passiv till ett intrång i varumärket.
Det föreligger inget lagstöd i patentlagen (1967:837) för parter att avtala om licenstagarens talerätt. Mot bakgrund av principen om processuella avtals ogiltighet, bör en klausul som begränsar licenstagarens talerätt inte få processuell verkan. Avtalsvillkoret bör därutöver inte ges den civilrättsliga verkan att domstolen ogillar intrångstalan under sakprövningen. Klausulen kan nämligen inte anses utgöra en begränsning av ensamrätten som upplåtits till licenstagaren. Vidare bör villkoret inte bedömas utgöra en privat norm som har företräde framför de lagstadgade rekvisiten i intrångsreglerna. (Less) - Abstract
- It is common that parties to a license agreement decide which party is to be responsible for protecting the license object from infringement. In connection to this, the parties often implement a contractual clause in the license agreement which provides restrictions on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court.
The purpose of this thesis has been to examine what parties to a licensing agreement should consider when implementing a clause that restricts the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before Court. Using the doctrinal research method, this thesis have answered whether the Court will reject or dismiss an infringement action brought by the licensee in breach of the contract. It is concluded that the... (More) - It is common that parties to a license agreement decide which party is to be responsible for protecting the license object from infringement. In connection to this, the parties often implement a contractual clause in the license agreement which provides restrictions on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court.
The purpose of this thesis has been to examine what parties to a licensing agreement should consider when implementing a clause that restricts the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before Court. Using the doctrinal research method, this thesis have answered whether the Court will reject or dismiss an infringement action brought by the licensee in breach of the contract. It is concluded that the Court will reject a licensee’s infringement action brought before Court in breach of contract if the license object is a trademark. If the license object is a patent, the Court will neither reject the infringement action nor dismiss the infringement case during the assessment on the merits.
Chapter 10 § 2 of the Trademark Act (2010:1877) provides legal support for the parties to a trademark license to agree on restrictions on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court. If the licensee does not comply with the conditions laid down in the clause, the court will reject the infringement action without carrying out an assessment on the merits. The fact that the licensee is hindered from having an assessment on the merits constitutes an infringement of his right of access to court, which is ensured by Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the restriction should be permissible since the licensee can bring actions against the licensor for breach of contract, if the licensor remains passive to the infringement.
There is no legal support in the Patent Law (1967:837) for parties to agree on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court. In light of the principle of procedural agreements’ invalidity, a clause restricting the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court should not have procedural effect. In addition, the clause should not constitute grounds for dismissal during the assessment on the merits. The clause should not be interpreted as a restriction of the exclusive rights granted to the licensee through the license agreement. Furthermore, the clause should not be interpreted as a private set of rules which takes precedence over the statutory conditions of the infringement rules. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010136
- author
- Åkerfeldt, Victor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Clauses regulating the right to action in license agreements - Civil and procedural effects of agreements regarding the licensee's right of action in infringement cases
- course
- JURM02 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt, civilrätt, immaterialrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010136
- date added to LUP
- 2020-06-13 12:42:53
- date last changed
- 2020-06-13 12:42:53
@misc{9010136,
abstract = {{It is common that parties to a license agreement decide which party is to be responsible for protecting the license object from infringement. In connection to this, the parties often implement a contractual clause in the license agreement which provides restrictions on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court.
The purpose of this thesis has been to examine what parties to a licensing agreement should consider when implementing a clause that restricts the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before Court. Using the doctrinal research method, this thesis have answered whether the Court will reject or dismiss an infringement action brought by the licensee in breach of the contract. It is concluded that the Court will reject a licensee’s infringement action brought before Court in breach of contract if the license object is a trademark. If the license object is a patent, the Court will neither reject the infringement action nor dismiss the infringement case during the assessment on the merits.
Chapter 10 § 2 of the Trademark Act (2010:1877) provides legal support for the parties to a trademark license to agree on restrictions on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court. If the licensee does not comply with the conditions laid down in the clause, the court will reject the infringement action without carrying out an assessment on the merits. The fact that the licensee is hindered from having an assessment on the merits constitutes an infringement of his right of access to court, which is ensured by Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the restriction should be permissible since the licensee can bring actions against the licensor for breach of contract, if the licensor remains passive to the infringement.
There is no legal support in the Patent Law (1967:837) for parties to agree on the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court. In light of the principle of procedural agreements’ invalidity, a clause restricting the licensee's right to bring infringement actions before court should not have procedural effect. In addition, the clause should not constitute grounds for dismissal during the assessment on the merits. The clause should not be interpreted as a restriction of the exclusive rights granted to the licensee through the license agreement. Furthermore, the clause should not be interpreted as a private set of rules which takes precedence over the statutory conditions of the infringement rules.}},
author = {{Åkerfeldt, Victor}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Talerättsklausuler i licensavtal - Civil- och processrättsliga effekter av överenskommelser om licenstagares talerätt i intrångsmål}},
year = {{2020}},
}