This 2010 case is a good reminder that courts will give effect
to arbitration clauses if that's what the parties have chosen
in their license agreements.
In PRM Energy Sys., Inc. v. Primenergy,
LLC, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010) , the United
States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit decided to uphold an
arbitration clause in a patent license agreement, which was drafted
to cover "all disputes arising under" the agreement. A
complex series of agreements and disputes led PRM to sue Kobe
Steel, a non-party or "non-signatory" to the original
license agreement that contained the arbitration clause. However,
Kobe Steel convined the court that the arbitration clause should be
enforced. The court decided that PRM's claims were so
intertwined with patent license that contained the arbitration
clause that it would be unfair to allow PRM to rely on the license
agreement in making its claims, but to avoid the arbitration clause
of that same agreement.
In Canada, courts have also shown that they are prepared to
uphold arbitration clauses. Consider this case:
The case of University of Toronto v. John N.
Harbinson Ltd. 2005 CanLII 47089 (ON SC), dealt
with a broad arbitration clause that said: "Any dispute,
controversy or claim arising from this Agreement or its breach,
termination or alleged invalidity shall be settled by arbitration
in accordance with the Arbitrations Act of Ontario, as
amended." In this case, the court decided that the arbitration
clause should be upheld, particularly since no Patent Act
claims or remedies were being sought.
Related reading: See Did
You Say Arbitration in Kazakhstan?, reviewing a
case where arbitration was triggered by one of the parties, and the
Alberta Court decided that the breach of contract questions fell
within the scope of the arbitration under the law of
Please click 'Next Page' link below for Part 2
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In the past year, a number of major financial institutions have
been hit not just once, but twice by federal and state regulators
for follow-on regulatory violations, including financial sanctions
A decision very recently released by the Federal Court, Black & Decker Corporation v. Piranha Abrasives Inc., 2015 FC 185, highlights two reasons why registration can go a long way to protecting your brand.
The recently released Federal Court decision Red Label Vacations Inc v 411 Travel Buys Limited, 2015 FC 19 contains one of the first detailed considerations by a Canadian Court of the issues of copyright and trademark infringement via the use of meta tags.
This case is the most recent in a small line of cases concerning
the intellectual property implications, or lack thereof, in using
website metatags formulated based on a competitor's website or